Patna High Court
Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied because the confession, seriousness of the offences, and absence of any new ground did not warrant release.
Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Kumar, was arrested on 21 June 2024 in connection with a murder case (IPC s.302) and related offences (IPC s.34, Arms Act s.27) arising from a pistol shot that killed a motorcycle owner. He applied for bail, but his earlier bail application had been rejected. The petitioner argued that he had been in custody for over two years and the trial was not progressing. The prosecution opposed, noting the petitioner’s recorded confession admitting he fired at the victim’s chest, and that no new grounds were raised. The court held that the seriousness of the offences, the confession, and the lack of fresh material did not justify bail, and consequently refused the bail application while directing the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused who has confessed to committing murder and related offences
- Whether the passage of time and alleged trial delay constitute a sufficient ground for bail
- Whether any new material or change in circumstances justifies revisiting a previously rejected bail application
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confession
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40062 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2024 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna
======================================================
Prakash Kumar S/o Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Rai @ Akshay Rai @ Akshay
Prakash @ Ajay Prakash @ Vijay Prasad R/o Vill- Naya Tola, P.S-
Bakhtiyarpur, Dist- Patna, Present Address- Michai Gali, P.S- Chowk, Dist-
Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Nagendra Prasad, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
21.06.2024 in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 1359 of
2024 arising out of Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 179 of 2024, F.I.R.
dated 22.04.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been
rejected vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
45785 of 2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 21.06.2024 and the trial is not in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40062 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/2
progress.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected on merit and in the present case, the petitioner has
not taken any new ground for grant of regular bail. Apart from
that the petitioner has confessed his guilt which was recorded in
paragraph no. 34 of the case diary in which he has stated that he
has fired from pistol upon the chest of the owner of motorcycle
in question (deceased) and due to which he died on the spot.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case that there is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
connection with S. Tr. Case No. 1359 of 2024 arising out of
Khajekalan P.S. Case No. 179 of 2024 pending in the court of
learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Patna City.
7. Prayer is refused.
8. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite
and conclude the trial at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.