Patna High Court

Akhilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 12 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The bail petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not merit the privilege of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Akhilesh Kumar, applied for regular bail in a murder case involving offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act. The deceased, Sudish Kumar, was shot on 10‑03‑2025 and died the next day. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating he was not named in the FIR, had no incriminating material, and possessed a clean antecedent. The informant’s counsel countered that CCTV footage showed the petitioner following the deceased and shaking hands with the shooter, and a co‑accused alleged a money‑dispute motive. The petitioner also confessed his guilt. Considering the confession and CCTV evidence, the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail and rejected the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite a confession and CCTV evidence linking him to the crime
Whether the seriousness of the offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Arms Act precludes bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 3(5)

Subjects

regular bail
confession
CCTV evidence
murder
Arms Act
Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50766 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- RAJIVNAGAR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Akhilesh Kumar S/O Naval Sah @ Naval Prasad Sah Village- Manaspur, P.S.-
                 Vaishali, Dist.- Vaishali                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the State            :       Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP
                 For the Informant        :       Mr. Shyam Kishore, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Aditya Pandey, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
                 PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

6   12-01-2026                      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

                   informant and learned APP for the State.

                                    2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in

                   connection with Rajeev Nagar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025, registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS

                   and 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act.

                                    3. As per the prosecution case, on 10.03.2025, the

                   informant’s husband, Sudish Kumar was shot by two unidentified

                   motorcyclists near his residence. He was taken to the hospital but he

                   died during treatment on 11.03.2025.

                                  4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

                   that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

                   present case. He has further submitted that petitioner is not named in

                   the FIR and his name transpires only on the basis of suspicion.

                   Except his confessional statement, there is nothing against him in the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50766 of 2025(6) dt.12-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       case diary. No incriminating article has been recovered from his

                       possession. The petitioner is not the assailant, rather, co-accused

                       Mukesh Kumar shot dead the deceased. It has further been submitted

                       that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and is in custody

                       since 19.03.2025.

                                    5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant

                       has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner has

                       been seen in CCTV footage following the deceased and shaking

                       hands with the shooter. It has further been submitted the impugned

                       order shows that co-accused Vishal Kumar has stated in paragraph

                       no. 67 of the case diary that Sudish Kumar (the deceased) had given

                       money to the petitioner and he demanded his money back from the

                       petitioner several times, due to which, the murder was committed at

                       the instance of the petitioner.

                                    6. The petitioner confessed his guilt and he was seen in

                       CCTV footage following the deceased.

                                    7.    Considering       the    above-mentioned   facts   and

                       circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of bail.

                       Accordingly, it is rejected.


                                            (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

priyanka/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…