Patna High Court
Sunil Tanti @ Sunil Kumar TantiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations and confession sufficient to reject the bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Tanti, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS for the alleged murder of the informant’s son. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that no one saw him with the deceased and that he was falsely implicated. The State and the informant contended that the petitioner had called the deceased to a fair, that CDR records showed a conversation between them, and that the petitioner had confessed his guilt in the case diary. After considering the allegations, the CDR evidence and the confession, the Court found the bail request untenable. Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioner's bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the alleged confession and CDR evidence linking him to the victim.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- bail denial
- confession
- CDR evidence
- murder
- Sections 103 61(2) 3(5) BNS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52377 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2025 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Sunil Tanti @ Sunil Kumar Tanti S/o- Santu Tanti @ Sintu Tanti Village-
Ekchari Bholsar Ps- Rasalpur Dist- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar Sinha
For the State : Mr. J.N.Thakur, APP
For the Informant Mr. R.R.Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 12-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for regular bail on behalf
of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 103,
61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, registered in connection with
Kahalgaon P.S.Case No. 116/2025.
3. As per allegation, the petitioner had called the
deceased (son of the informant) to visit the fair. Subsequently,
the in-charge of the Kahalgaon police station intimated the
informant that her son had been murdered by someone.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated. No one has seen the occurrence. He has also
submitted that no one has seen the petitioner with the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52377 of 2025(3) dt.12-01-2026
2/2
5. On the other hand, the learned APP Mr. J.N.Thakur
and the learned counsel for the informant have submitted that it
was the petitioner who called the deceased. CDR shows that the
petitioner had conversation with the deceased before the
occurrence. They also submitted that the petitioner has
confessed his guilt in para-22 of the case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances and also
in view of the allegation levelled against the petitioner, this
Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail,
which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
HR/-
U T
Checking your session…