Patna High Court
Himanshu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Himanshu Kumar was charged with murder under Sections 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with additional charges of Sections 1036, 238 and 61(2) later added. The prosecution’s case is based on a confessional statement of co‑accused Manish Kumar, which implicates Himanshu in the killing of the informant’s son, the disposal of the body, and concealment of the weapon and mobile. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR, works in Madhya Pradesh and therefore cannot abscond or tamper with evidence, and that a charge‑sheet has already been filed. The informant’s counsel countered that the confessional statement directly links the petitioner to the murder and that a similar bail plea by a co‑accused had been rejected. The court, considering the gravity of the offence, the material evidence recovered, and the confessional statements, declined to grant regular bail, dismissing the application but allowing a fresh petition after one year if the trial shows no progress.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused in a murder case where a confessional statement of a co‑accused implicates him.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence given the seriousness of the charges.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 1036, 137(2), 238, 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- gravity of offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3432 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-522 Year-2024 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Himanshu Kumar Son of Amrendra Kumar Pandey Resident of village -
Adwara, P.S.- Bariyarpur, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the State : Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh
For the informant : Mr. Santosh kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel
for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sakra
Police Station Case No. 522 of 2024, dated 13.10.2024,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137
(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Later on, after
recovery of the dead body of the son of the informant,
Sections 1036/238/61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 was added on 15.11.2024.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 10.10.2024, at about 7 PM, the son of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3432 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
2/4
informant, namely, Nitesh Kumar, went to visit Pilkhi
Fair on his motorcycle and at about 10 PM, he made a
call to the wife of the informant from Mobile No.
9122099690 and told that he is coming within ten
minutes. When the son of the informant did not come, he
called on the mobile, but the same was switched off. The
informant made a hectic search of his son, but he could
not find him anywhere.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. He further submits that the petitioner is not
named in the First Information Report and his name
transpired in this case on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Manish Kumar. He next submits
that co-accused Manish Kumar, in his confessional
statement, has admitted that co-accused Sahil Kumar has
assaulted the deceased by means of knife, due to which he
died. He also submits that the petitioner is working in a
private company in the State of Madhya Pradesh and on
the date of occurrence itself, he had come to his home. He
further submits that the petitioner is in custody since
15.04.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3432 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
3/4
against him and as such there is no likelihood that the
petitioner will abscond and/or tamper with the evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that
for the first time, the name of the petitioner transpired in
the confessional statement of co-accused Manish Kumar,
who has confessed that he (Manish Kumar), Sahil and
Himanshu (petitioner) has killed the son of the informant.
Co-accused Manish Kumar has further disclosed that they
have thrown the motorcycle of the deceased in the river
and they have also concealed the mobile and the knife
under the earth in a polythene near the Babool tree. The
confessional statement of co-accused Manish led to the
recovery of the weapon (knife) and mobile. The
motorcycle of the deceased was recovered from the house
of co-accused Manish Kumar. He further submits that the
petitioner has confessed before the police that he, along
with other two accused persons, called the deceased and
the petitioner demanded his money, and on refusal, co-
accused Sahil inflicted knife blow on the deceased due to
which he died. After that, he, along with others, brought a
sack, kept the dead body in that sack and threw the same
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3432 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
4/4
in a pond. He further submits that the petitioner has taken
active participation in the murder of the deceased. He
further submits that the regular bail application of the co-
accused Manish Kumar has been dismissed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order, dated
28.11.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 55699 of 2025.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the gravity of the offence and the
materials collected during investigation, I am not inclined
to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer after one
year from today, if the trial does not show any progress.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.