Patna High Court
Om Kumar @ Om Kumar Singh @ Om Kunvar @ Om SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Kumar, was implicated in a FIR for offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and the Arms Act based solely on a confessional statement of a co-accused. He argued that he was not originally named in the FIR, no material was recovered from his possession, and similarly situated co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution opposed bail, citing three prior criminal antecedents. The High Court considered the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, the precedent of bail to co-accused, and the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail. It held that bail could be granted subject to strict conditions, including cooperation with the trial and verification of antecedents. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the petitioner is implicated solely on a co-accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the statutory provisions of Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 BNS empower the court to grant bail in the present circumstances.
- Whether the petitioner should be treated similarly to co-accused who were previously granted anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(4), 310(5), 310(6), 317(3), 317(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Arms Act
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNS
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30041 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2025 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Om Kumar @ Om Kumar Singh @ Om Kunvar @ Om Singh Son of Neeraj
Kumar Singh @ Pankaj Kunvar Resident of Village Tara, P.S.-
Mohiuddinagar, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Madhubala Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-07-2026 Heard Ms. Madhubala Verma, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Mohiuddinagar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025, F.I.R.
dated 27.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
310(4), 310(5), 310(6), 317(3), 317(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 and 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along
with other co-accused persons had assembled at co-accused
Durgesh Kumar’s Bathan for commission of offence but when
police party raided the place they managed to flee from the spot
and their names were disclosed by the apprehended co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30041 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/4
persons. Firearms and other incriminating articles were
recovered from possession of apprehended co-accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR
and his name transpired during investigation on the basis of
confessional statement of apprehended co-accused, namely,
Durgesh Kumar and except the aforesaid, no other cogent
material has come during investigation against the petitioner to
suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present
occurrence and firearms and other articles have been recovered
from possession of the said Durgesh Kumar and petitioner has
no role at all in the present occurrence. He next submits that
similarly situated co-accused person, namely, Vikash Kumar @
Vikas Kumar has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail
by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.
60668 of 2025 and other co-accused person, namely, Kaushal
Chaudhary @ Anurudh Kumar @ Kasushal Chaudhari has also
been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 in Cr. Misc.
No. 57876 of 2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30041 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
3/4
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the
ground that petitioner carries three criminal antecedents other
than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of
paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail
in two cases and one case is pending for consideration before
competent Court of law.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR
and his name transpired during investigation on the basis of
confessional statement of apprehended co-accused and similarly
situated co-accused persons have been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by this Court/Co-ordiante Bench of this Court
and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession
of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned S.D.J.M, Sahapur Patory, Samastipur in connection
with Mohiuddinagar P.S. Case No. 75 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30041 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
4/4
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.