Patna High Court
Bimlesh Kumar @ Vimlesh Singh @ Karu Singh @ KaruversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PRAVEEN KUMAR
Holding
The application for discharge under Section 482 CrPC is dismissed as it lacks merit.
Summary
The petitioner Bimlesh Kumar sought discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC from charges of murder, kidnapping and conspiracy (IPC §§ 364, 302, 201, 120B, 34) arising from a double murder case. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the only material against him was a confessional statement of co‑accused Abhimanyu Singh, and that there was no eye‑witness or complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The State contended that the investigation had uncovered bodies, recovered weapons, and that the co‑accused’s confession reliably linked the petitioner to the crime, justifying the charge‑sheet. The High Court examined the submissions and held that the merits of the petition could be decided only at trial and that the petitioner’s reliance on a Supreme Court decision in a different factual context (NDPS case) was inapplicable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition under Section 482, finding it devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC on the ground of insufficient evidence, particularly when the only incriminating material is a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether the High Court can intervene under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the trial court’s order refusing discharge.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 227, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34, 364
Subjects
- discharge
- Section 482 CrPC
- double murder
- confessional statement
- circumstantial evidence
- co‑accused
- IPC
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3115 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2022 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Bimlesh Kumar @ Vimlesh Singh @ Karu Singh @ Karu S/o Naresh Singh
R/o Sakardas Nawada, PS- Wajeerganj, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tarun Kumar Pandey S/o Late Anil Kumar Pandey R/o RZ79A, First Floor,
Mohan Nagar, Pankha Road, P.S. Sagarpur, New Delhi
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party-State: Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
CAV ORDER
3 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner
putting to challenge the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Aurangabad, in Sessions
Trial Case No.483 of 2023, arising out of Nabinagar P.S. Case
No. 183 of 2022, whereby the petition under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for discharge from the offences
under Section 364, 302, 201,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
has been rejected.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on
23.05.2022, the father of the informant had come to Nabinagar
to sell his newly constructed house situated near Nabinagar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3115 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
2/5
High School. The informant lives in Delhi with his family and
he had talked to his father till 24.05.2022 on mobile that his
father was to enter into a deal for selling the house with
someone, however, after 24.05.2022, when he could not contact
his father since his mobile phone was switched off, he tried to
locate his father from his sources, but could not find his trace.
Apprehending about something untoward, he came to Nabinagar
and on reaching there he came to know that one Abhimanyu
Singh, whose under-construction house is adjacent to the house
of the informant, met the father of the informant on 23.05.2022
and, according to Abhimanyu Singh, the father of the informant
had borrowed some money from him during construction of the
house, which has not been returned and, therefore, Abhimanyu
Singh has put his lock in the house of the informant and said
that until the money is returned, he will not leave that house.
The informant has alleged that he was not aware of any such
transaction and apprehended that because of the same,
Abhimanyu Singh might have harmed his father.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and thereafter upon
completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed
against him and upon such submission of charge-sheet,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3115 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
3/5
cognizance also came to be taken against the petitioner. Learned
counsel further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the
occurrence, the case is based on circumstantial evidence and
that the chain of circumstances is not complete so as to prove
the hypothesis of guilt against this petitioner. Moreover, the
name of the petitioner surfaced during the course of
investigation upon the confessional statement of co-accused
Abhimanyu Singh before the police while in police custody and
except the said confessional statement of the co-accused there is
no other material against the petitioner. Learned counsel also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Karan Talwar vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, passed in
SLP (Crl.) No.10736 of 2022, wherein the only material being
confessional statement of co-accused before the police does not
form sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the impugned order,
refusing to discharge, is based on well reasoned facts as
collected during investigation and as on law also and does not
warrant interference. Further, referring to the impugned order,
he has submitted that in course of investigation in paragraphs
No.5, 23, 27, 55, 61, 70, 71, 76, 87, 100,101, 151 and 156 it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3115 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
4/5
transpired that all the charge-sheeted accused persons along
with the petitioner were active participants in alleged crime and
as per the confessional statement of co-accused Abhimanyu
Singh, the dead bodies of two deceased persons, Anil Kumar
Pandey and Moni Saxena were recovered from the respective
places by the concerned police on 25.05.2022 for which
Madanpur P.S. Case No. 185 of 2022 has also been registered. It
has been submitted that the arms used in the crime has also been
recovered from one accused Pawan Kumar Pandey for which
Aurangabad P.S. Case No.10/2022 dated 09.07.2022 has been
registered. It has been submitted that there are sufficient
material to frame charge against the petitioner and prayed to
reject the present application. The case being of the offences
under Section 364 in which subsequently Section 302 IPC was
added after recovery of the dead bodies. The case being with
respect to murder of two deceased persons and in the confession
of co-accused Abhimanyu Singh, the name of the petitioner has
surfaced and after a thorough investigation, charge-sheet was
submitted against the petitioner finding the case to be true
against him.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the record and found that this is a case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3115 of 2025(3) dt.24-03-2026
5/5
double murder and the confessing co-accused, upon whose
confession the two dead bodies were recovered, has named the
petitioner and to this Court it appears that the grounds put forth
by the petitioner in this application can be considered during the
trial only where any distinction between the case of the
petitioner and other co-accused can be adjudicated based on the
evidences, which will be led during a full fledged trial. As far as
the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the
same would not be of any help to him since it is with respect to
a case for offences under NDPS Act and the facts of that case is
different from the present one.
7. This application is devoid of any merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…