Patna High Court
Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the co‑accused’s statements and the ongoing investigation did not establish a convincing case for granting bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that a FIR (Case No. 237 of 2024) had been lodged for offences under Sections 310(2), 311, 109 of the BNS Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR alleged that informants were looted and fired upon, causing injuries, and the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted a diary entry indicating that co‑accused Vikash Kumar and Akash Kumar had confessed that the petitioner was not present at the scene, though they admitted the incident was within his knowledge. The court considered the nature of the accusations, the co‑accused’s statements, and the fact that the investigation remained open. Concluding that the allegations were not sufficiently convincing to merit anticipatory bail, the court rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate standard for granting anticipatory bail when the petitioner is not named in the FIR but co‑accused statements suggest knowledge of the incident?
- Does the co‑accused’s confession that the petitioner was not present at the scene preclude the necessity of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109, 310(2), 311
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- co‑accused confession
- criminal procedure
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35336 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2024 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Nitish Kumar S/o Surendra Yadav R/o Village- Sahay Bigha, P.S.-
Makhdumpur, Dist.- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prithivi Raj Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
6 21-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Buniyadganj P.S.
Case No. 237 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 310(2), 311, 109 of BNS and Section 27 of
Arms Act.
3. As per FIR, informant and his brother was looted
during the occurrence who were working with R.V.M. Future
Nidhi Ltd. and during the occurrence the accused persons
open fire upon informant and others causing bodily injuries on
chest and leg.
4. During course of argument, learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35336 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
2/2
appearing on behalf of the petitioner drawn attention of this
Court towards para no. 98 of the case diary where
apprehended co-accused namely Vikash Kumar and Akash
Kumar confessed the involvement of this petitioner alongwith
other unknown co-accused persons stating that this petitioner
never visited place of occurrence. However, it is submitted
that said statement also disclosing the fact that the
occurrence was well within the knowledge of this petitioner
also. It is submitted that in view of the fact as petitioner was
not present at the place of occurrence the allegation of firing
not appears convincing against him.
5. Let it be so, considering the nature of accusations
and further in view of statement of co-accused as discussed
aforesaid, coupled with the fact that investigation is still open,
the prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner stands rejected
for the present.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…