Dipesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55733 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-497 Year-2023 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger
                 ======================================================
                 Dipesh Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Yadav @ Late Ramchandra Prasad @
                 Late Ramchandra Prasad Yadav R/o Mohalla - Kemkha, P.S - Kotwali,
                 District - Munger
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate
                                                  Sri Karuna Nath Sahay, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Sri Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   24-02-2026                   1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal

                   Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act and subsequently

                   Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections

                   25(1-b)a, 26(i)(ii) and 35 of the Arms Act were added.

                                 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases

                   and is in custody since 04.06.2025. It is further submitted that

                   FIR was against unknown and the petitioner came to be

                   implicated based on the confessional statement of co-accused in

                   police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the

                   eye of law. It is next submitted that Rahul Kumar, in whose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55733 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
                                            2/4




          confession, the name of the petitioner transpired, has been

          granted the privilege of regular bail by a learned Coordinate

          Bench of this Court by an order dated 20.02.2024 in Cr. Misc.

          No. 9604 of 2024. It is, thus submitted that if a person, on

          whose confession, the name of the petitioner transpired, has

          been granted the privilege of regular bail, no useful purpose

          would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail.

                       4. At this stage, learned A.P.P. for the State submits

          that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court seeking

          anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 13174 of 2024 and the

          same came to be allowed by an order dated 18.03.2024 with a

          condition that petitioner will cooperate in the investigation and

          if charge-sheet is submitted connecting the petitioner with the

          offence in that event the anticipatory bail order shall lose its

          effect. Learned A.P.P. further submits that charge-sheet came to

          be submitted, as such, the petitioner instead of surrendering

          again moved before this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 66324 of

          2024 seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected by an

          order dated 04.04.2025. It is next submitted that from perusal of

          the order dated 04.04.2025, it would manifest that in the said

          case, the Superintendent of Police, Munger was summoned and

          the Superintendent of Police, Munger before the Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55733 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
                                            3/4




          submitted based on investigation that name of the petitioner

          transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused

          but then during the course of investigation a CCTV footage of

          the occurrence also transpired and from perusal of the same, it

          manifested that it was petitioner, who had committed the

          occurrence of killing the deceased, as such, the petitioner came

          to be implicated based on the CCTV footage of the occurrence.

          Learned A.P.P. also submits that accordingly the second

          anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner came to be

          rejected by an order dated 04.04.2025. It is further submitted

          that in the said case, the Superintendent of Police, Munger had

          assured the Court that SHO-cum-Investigating Officer of the

          case, who was helping the petitioner, has been suspended and a

          departmental proceeding against him would be initiated.

          Learned A.P.P., thus, submits that when name of the petitioner

          transpired during the course of investigation based on the CCTV

          footage where petitioner is seen committing the occurrence and

          also taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has

          antecedent of five serious cases, it is not a fit case for grant of

          regular bail.

                       5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55733 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
                                                       4/4




                     petitioner on bail in connection with Kotwali (Basudeopur) P.S.

                     Case No. 497 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Chief

                     Judicial Magistrate, Munger/Successor Court.

                                  6. Hence, the prayer for regular bail is rejected.

                                  7. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

                     behalf of the petitioner submits that Rahul Kumar apart from

                     confessing the name of the petitioner also confessed the name of

                     Ashish Kumar in the occurrence who has antecedent of seven

                     cases as has come at para 77 of the case diary but then he has

                     been granted the privilege of regular bail by a learned

                     Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that as

                     far as the petitioner is concerned, he has only five antecedents

                     on which learned A.P.P. submits that it is a submission worth not

                     noticing even rather is to be rejected at the outset for the reason

                     that during the course of investigation, it has not transpired that

                     it was Ashish Kumar who committed the occurrence of killing

                     of the deceased when name of the petitioner during the course

                     of investigation apart from confession also transpired based on

                     the CCTV footage.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T