Patna High Court
Rajnish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Rajnish Kumar sought anticipatory bail after learning that his name had been implicated in a murder case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The FIR did not name him; his alleged involvement emerged solely from the confessional statement of co-accused Akash Kumar, who claimed the petitioner inflicted a knife wound on the deceased. The petitioner argued he was innocent and that the informant was not an eye‑witness, while the State highlighted the confessional statement and the petitioner's prior criminal antecedent. The Court examined the reliability of a co‑accused’s confession, the seriousness of the offence, and the petitioner’s antecedents. Concluding that the material on record was insufficient to justify bail and that the gravity of the charge warranted custody, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only incriminating material is a confessional statement of a co‑accused.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused is sufficient to establish prima facie case against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner's prior criminal antecedent influences the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- Section 103
- Section 3
- B.N.S.
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3249 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2025 Thana- DERNI BAZAR District- Saran
======================================================
Rajnish Kumar S/o- Vinod Ray R/v- Jaminpur Ps- Derni Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Shambhawi, Advocate
For the State : Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and
3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, informant suspects that all
the F.I.R. named accused persons, along with some unknown
persons, killed his son.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the
occurrence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. Name of
petitioner transpired in this case during investigation, merely on
the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Akash Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3249 of 2026(3) dt.09-04-2026
2/2
Save and except confessional statement, there is no material on
record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged
offence.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner transpired in
this case during investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Akash Kumar wherein he has confessed
that this petitioner was one of the attackers and he inflicted
knife upon the deceased. Petitioner has got one criminal
antecedent.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, materials that have surfaced during investigation, gravity
of offence and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer
for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…