Patna High Court
Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was not named in the FIR and that his name only appeared in a confessional statement of co‑accused Deepak @ Bhogi. He contended that he was already in judicial custody when the alleged offence occurred and that a confessional statement made in police custody lacks evidentiary value. The State argued that the confessional statement implicates the petitioner in a conspiracy to murder the deceased, highlighted his ten prior serious cases, and warned that he might abscond or tamper with evidence if released. The court examined the confessional statement and the risk factors presented by the State. Concluding that the risk of absconding and evidence tampering outweighed the petitioner's arguments, the court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the confessional statement implicating him.
- Whether a confessional statement made in police custody is admissible for bail considerations.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent cases and risk of absconding justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- antecedent cases
- evidence tampering
- conspiracy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58095 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2025 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna
======================================================
Nitish Kumar S/o- Uday Yadav Resident of Anouli P.S- Bhagwanganj, Dist-
Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Masaurhi PS Case No. 298 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of ten cases and is in custody since 16-
5-2025. It is next submitted that in sum and substance the
allegation is of killing the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the
confessional statement of Deepak @ Bhogi. It is next submitted
that petitioner was in judicial custody when the occurrence is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58095 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
alleged to have been committed. It is further submitted that
confessional statement in police custody does not have any
evidentiary value.
5. The Court made a specific query, whether the
learned counsel has copy of the confessional statement of
Deepak @ Bhogi, on which the learned counsel fairly submitted
that he has a copy of the confessional statement of Deepak @
Bhogi.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State, after going through the
confessional statement of Deepak @ Bhogi, submitted that
though petitioner was in custody when the occurrence is alleged
to have been committed, but then petitioner along with co-
accused were involved in offences relating to land broking. It is
next submitted that Deepak @ Bhogi, in his confessional
statement, has specifically stated that the deceased was also an
upcoming gangster and was creating troubles for petitioner and
others, as such a conspiracy was hatched to eliminate him. It is
also submitted that petitioner had hatched the conspiracy from
jail along with other accused persons and thereafter Mukesh @
Chhotan was eliminated. Learned APP further submits that
Deepak @ Bhogi, in his confessional statement, has also stated
that several rounds of firing were done at Mukesh and one bullet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58095 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
was also fired by him.
7. Learned APP next submits that petitioner has
antecedent of ten serious cases, on which the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has
been acquitted in one case, on which learned APP submits that if
petitioner is granted the privilege of regular bail, the petitioner
may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.
8. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…