Patna High Court
Arjun KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the petitioner is a co-accused in a serious murder offence and the investigation remains open.
Summary
The petitioner, Arjun Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a murder case (IPC Sections 302/34) where he was named as a co-accused. The FIR alleged that he, along with Chhappan Singh and Gautam Ram, lured the informant's son to his house and the son was later found dead. The petitioner argued that the case was based merely on suspicion and that no incriminating material linked him to the crime, also noting a pending petty case under the Essential Commodities Act. The State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioner’s participation in the alleged conspiracy and the ongoing investigation warranted denial of bail. The Court held that the petitioner’s role as a co-accused and the seriousness of the offence precluded the grant of anticipatory bail, directing that regular bail, if sought after surrender, be decided by the trial court. Consequently, the anticipatory bail petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be granted when the petitioner is a co-accused in a murder case based largely on suspicion.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged participation in the alleged conspiracy justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- Criminal Procedure Code
- suspicion
- co-accused
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34593 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-531 Year-2023 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Arjun Kumar, son of Late Ravindra Singh, Village- Mohjama, P.S. - Paru,
Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Uday Prakash Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Paroo P.S. Case
No. 531 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, (West)
Muzaffarpur.
3. As per FIR, informant raised suspicion against the
petitioner and others co-accused persons to commit murder of
his son as petitioner alongwith other named co-accused
persons called his son in evening i.e. about 6:00 P.M. on
14.12.2023, whereafter on 15.12.2023 at about 10:00 A.M.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34593 of 2024(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
his dead body was recovered from a nearby local canal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that allegation raised against petitioner
merely on the ground of suspicion as he alongwith other co-
accused persons called his son from his house and, thereafter,
his dead body was recovered. It is submitted that till now,
nothing incriminating appears against this petitioner which
may suggest his involvement with the present crime in
question except suspicion as expressed through FIR. It is
submitted that named co-accused Chhappan Singh and
Gautam Ram have inimical terms with the son of the
informant.
5. It is pointed out that investigation of this case on all
material aspects has been completed in this matter and no
further custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears
required and, therefore, sending the petitioner to jail would
not serve any judicial purpose.
6. Explaining criminal antecedent of the petitioner, it is
submitted that petitioner found involved in one more criminal
case of petty nature related with essential commodities Act, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34593 of 2024(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
which, he is on bail.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that
suspicion, as expressed by the informant qua involvement of
this petitioner, is not unfounded rather he alongwith other co-
accused persons particularly co-accused Chhappan Singh and
Gautam Ram came to the house of informant and taken away
his son on the pretext of attending party and, thereafter his
dead body was recovered on next very day.
8. It is submitted by learned A.P.P. that admittedly the
son of informant was in inimical terms with Chhappan Singh
due to certain monetary dispute. While concluding argument,
learned A.P.P. submitted that still this matter is open for
investigation.
9. In view of the aforesaid submission and by taking
note of the fact as petitioner was one of the co-accused who
called the son of the informant from his house, where one of
the co-accused was in inimical terms, as discussed aforesaid,
coupled with the fact that immediately thereafter son of the
informant was murdered, accordingly, prayer of anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34593 of 2024(4) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
bail of the petitioner stands rejected for the present.
10. If petitioner surrenders before the learned trial
court and prays for regular bail, learned trial court may decide
the same in accordance with law without being prejudiced by
any observation as made by this Court.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…