Patna High Court
Kunal Bhardwaj @ TwinkalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Kunal Bhardwaj, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a 2018 case alleging offences under sections 302, 307, 341, 342, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and co‑accused forced a land deed on the informant, assaulted her and brutally attacked her husband with an iron rod, resulting in the husband’s death. The petitioner contends that the allegations are false, that no material links him to the crime, and points to the acquittal of a co‑accused in a related trial. The court noted that the petitioner had been at large for more than eight years before seeking anticipatory bail. Considering the seriousness of the charges and the long delay, the court declined to grant bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the grave nature of the offences alleged and the eight‑year delay in filing the application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 323, 34, 341, 342
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- attempt to murder
- assault
- land dispute
- bail denial
- delay in filing
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5863 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2018 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Kunal Bhardwaj @ Twinkal Son of Shankar Kumar Panday R/o Village -
Sirhulli, P.S. - Kamtaul, Dist. - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kedar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
6 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this application prays for bail
apprehending his arrest in connection with Kamtaul P.S. Case
no.35 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable under
sections 302, 307, 341, 342, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the accused persons including the petitioner herein were
insisting upon the informant executing a registered deed
transferring the land belonging to the informant in their favour.
It is stated that the informant was not ready to do so. She has a
son who is mentally unstable. On the date of occurrence, the
accused persons abused and assaulted her as also brutally
assaulted her husband with an iron rod leading to serious
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5863 of 2026(6) dt.29-04-2026
2/2
injuries. Her husband died on way to the P.M.C.H.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegations are false
and incorrect. No material has transpired in course of
investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. It
further transpires from the supplementary affidavit that FIR
named co-accused Shankar Kumar Pandey has been acquitted
by judgment dated 22.3.2021 passed in Sessions Trial no.481 of
2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge V, Darbhanga.
The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR together with the petitioner having remained at large for
over 8 years before moving this Court for anticipatory bail, the
Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the
application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…