Patna High Court
Prince KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and dismissed the petitioner's bail application.
Summary
Prince Kumar was arrested in connection with PS case no.258 of 2025, where the informant alleged that he confessed to murdering her husband. He filed an application for regular bail under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, contending that he had been falsely implicated and that the FIR narrative was inaccurate. The State opposed the bail, stressing the direct allegation of confession recorded in the FIR. After hearing both sides, the court held that the seriousness of the accusation and the material gathered during investigation warranted denial of bail at this stage. The bail application was rejected, but the petitioner was permitted to renew the prayer after three months or upon framing of charge, having already been in custody for one year.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 despite the allegation of confession in the FIR.
- Whether the alleged confession recorded in the FIR constitutes a sufficient ground to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prolonged pre‑trial detention of one year justifies the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- false implication
- FIR
- confession
- pre‑trial detention
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.489 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Prince Kumar S/O Ramsevak Singh R/O Village- Dhobagawa, P.S- Pusha,
Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ankit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rabi Bhushan, Advocate
Mr. Rakhi Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pronoti Singh, APP
Mr. Krishna Murari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 01-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Sitamarhi P.S. Case
no.258 of 2025, registered under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that she received information about murder of her husband. On
reaching home, she found the dead body of her husband and the
petitioner by her side. It is further stated that the petitioner
accepted having murdered the informant’s husband. Information
was given to the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The manner of
occurrence is other than what has been described in the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.489 of 2026(4) dt.01-04-2026
2/2
There was no reason for the petitioner to have committed the
said crime. It is not a natural conduct for a person to have
confessed the crime in the manner as has been described by the
informant in the FIR. The petitioner is in custody since 1.4.2025
i.e. for 1 year and undertakes to cooperate in the
investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is named in
the FIR and there is direct allegation against him insofar as he
confessed to have committed the alleged crime and of having
murdered the husband of the informant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR and the material that has transpired in course of
investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his
prayer for bail after 3 months or on framing of charge,
whichever is later.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…