Patna High Court
Bimlesh Kumar @ Vikash Kumar @ VikashversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court denied regular bail, holding that the second bail application was not maintainable.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered a second application for regular bail filed by Bimlesh Kumar, who is in custody for offences under Sections 302, 304B, 201 and 34 of the IPC relating to the alleged murder of his sister‑in‑law. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner tortured his wife for dowry and killed the informant’s sister because of a love affair. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, that the marriage had taken place seven years earlier, and that the post‑mortem showed drowning with signs of violence, arguing that the charges were already framed leaving no scope for evidence tampering. The State opposed bail, stating that there were no changed circumstances since the first application. The Court held that the second bail application was not maintainable and rejected the prayer, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail on the second application despite no change in circumstances
- Whether the bail application is maintainable in view of pending prosecution witnesses and the nature of the offences
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 304B, 34
Subjects
- regular bail
- second bail application
- IPC
- murder
- dowry harassment
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3420 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2023 Thana- KARPI District- Arwal
======================================================
Bimlesh Kumar @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash, S/o Nunulal Yadav, R/o Village-
Prayag Bigha, P.S.- Karpi (Shahartelpa), Distt.- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Paras Nath, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 03-04-2026 Perused the report received in compliance of this
Court’s order dated 13.02.2026, kept at Flag - ‘R’.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
4. The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2024, arising out of
Karpi (Shahartelpa) P.S. Case No. 289 of 2023, registered for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3420 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
2/3
the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 302, 304(B), 201 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The case of the prosecution is that the sister of
the informant was married to the petitioner in the year 2017 and
he used to torture his wife for dowry. It has further been alleged
that the petitioner has love affair with another girl and was
adamant to perform marriage with her. On account of such love
affair with the said lady, the petitioner killed the informant’s
sister, whose dead-body was found near a canal.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that he has falsely been implicated in this case and the marriage
of the petitioner and the informant’s sister was solemnized
seven years ago. It has further been submitted that from the
post-mortem report, it is clear that the cause of death is due to
drowning with sign of violence. It has next been submitted that
the charges have already been framed in this case and as such,
there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. It has lastly
been submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent
against his name, wherein he is on bail and he is in custody
since 11.08.2023.
7. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3420 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026
3/3
submitted that since in this second attempt there is no changed
circumstances, the present application is not maintainable.
8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present
bail application for the present, though it has been reported that
no prosecution witness has been examined till date and bailable
warrants have been issued against them.
9. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is,
accordingly, rejected.
10. The application stands dismissed.
11. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner
is in custody since 11.08.2023, the learned Trial Court is
directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as
expeditiously as possible.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…