Patna High Court
Abhinav Pathak @ Chandan @ Chandan PathakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail as the only material against him is a confessional statement and no substantive evidence links him to the alleged offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhinav Pathak, sought regular bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 103(2) and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, relating to the murder of an informant's brother. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on the petitioner’s name appearing in confessional statements recorded in an unrelated NDPS case and a video showing him dancing with a pistol; no direct evidence linked him to the murder. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, that his name was not in the FIR, and that the only material against him was the confessional statement, which he claimed was inadmissible. The State opposed bail, citing two prior criminal cases. The Court, after weighing the lack of substantive evidence beyond the confessional statements and the petitioner’s prolonged custody since September 2025, ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, directing compliance with the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the reliance on confessional statements recorded in a separate case.
- Whether the confessional statements constitute sufficient prima facie evidence to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal antecedent
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40982 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2025 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Abhinav Pathak @ Chandan @ Chandan Pathak Son of Rajiv Pathak Resident
of Village - Malahi, P.S.- Sursand, District - Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(2) and
61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that Sunil
Jha and others have killed the brother of the informant, namely,
Madan Kumar Singh.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
name of this petitioner is not there in the F.I.R. From perusal of
the order of the leaned trial Court it will transpire that learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40982 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
trial Court has recorded that “this petitioner’s name surfaced in
the confessional statement recorded in Sursand P.S. Case
No.329 of 2025 dated 28.08.2025 under NDPS, confessional
statement of Shiv Shankar (Mukhiya)/(Ravi Shankar Mukhiya)
mentioned in para 33/173, confessional statement of Deepak
Kumar Thakur in para 186of the case diary”.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that name of this petitioner has surfaced in this case
on the basis of confessional statement recorded in other case. It
has further been submitted that learned trial Court has recorded
in para 87 of the case diary that the petitioner was found in
video where he was seen dancing with pistol. It has further been
submitted that only material against the petitioner is
confessional statement. Save and except the confessional
statement, there is nothing against him. Petitioner is languishing
in judicial custody since 04.09.2025.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the application for bail and has submitted
that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of two cases.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40982 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in connection
with Dumra P.S. Case No. 418 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.