Patna High Court

Dhananjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The High Court held that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient material to justify custodial interrogation and therefore granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Dhananjay Kumar, a government servant, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a murder case under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. The allegations stemmed from an informant's claim that the petitioner had conspired to have the informant's son killed, with alleged contract money paid to hired shooters. The petitioner argued that the investigation produced no substantive material linking him to the crime, citing that key statements were obtained only after the suspect was remanded and that primary evidence, such as the mobile phone recording, was never produced. The court examined the insufficiency of the prosecution's evidence, the haste in obtaining a Section 82 CrPC process, and the lack of technical investigation connecting the petitioner to the offence. Concluding that the material was insufficient to justify custodial interrogation, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions for cooperation and potential cancellation if the petitioner fails to assist the investigation.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of alleged false implication and insufficient evidentiary material.
Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case linking the petitioner to the murder under the cited provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 115(2), 126, 3(5), 61(2)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 180, 183, 482(2), 82

Subjects

anticipatory bail
false implication
investigation
contract murder
government servant
Section 82 CrPC
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
insufficient evidence

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65688 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- Mehsoul District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Dhananjay Kumar Son of Late Kailash Ray Resident of Village -Ward 08,
Ramnagara, PO- Sirauli, PS -Riga, Distt -Sitamarhi

... ... Petitioner/s

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Adv
Mr.Surya Narayan Kumar, Adv
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER

7 16-01-2026 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri

Ansul; learned APP, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad and learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, Mr. Ashhar

Mustafa.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126,

115(2), 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

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

3. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the

informant is taken on record.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and both the cases
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
2/11

were instituted from the side of the informant. It is next

submitted that petitioner is a government servant and is posted

as District Treasury Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. It is

further submitted that the informant alleges that his elder son,

Basim Anwar Khan @ Puttu had come to his house and was

looking perturbed, accordingly the informant asked his son why

he is looking perturbed, on which he disclosed that Asgar

Hussain, Md. Nasir Ahmad, Devendra Shah, Dhananjay Kumar

(petitioner), Azizur Rahman and Vimlesh Kumar Jha had met in

the shop of Ejaj Shah for the purposes of getting him killed and

have also given money to the shooters and the shooters can kill

him any time. It is further alleged that his son also disclosed that

he had recorded the aforesaid fact in his mobile, further his son

also disclosed that Lal’s brother Md. Islam is also involved in

the conspiracy and the aforesaid accused persons can get him

killed any time, on which informant asked his son that why he

did not disclose the said fact to the police, on which his son said

that in the morning he will accompany the informant to the

police station for giving information to the police about the

conspiracy. It is next alleged that thereafter his son left for his

house and when he reached near his house the informant heard

sound of firing, accordingly he came out and saw that his son
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
3/11

was shot and his family members Sahin Anwar Khan and Sahil

Parwez disclosed that they have seen the three shooters who

committed the occurrence, but they did not know their name but

can identify by their face.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by

the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the

allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the

entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is further submitted

that in the FIR altogether 8 accused are named, but then during

the course of investigation no material transpired even remotely

connecting any of the accused persons except the petitioner, but

then the petitioner also came to be implicated in a peculiar

manner. It is submitted that initially Vikram @ Vicky was

arrested, whose statement was recorded by the police and he

disclosed that the occurrence was committed by Rakesh, Satyam

and Ranjay; and Rakesh was paid contract money for getting the

occurrence committed. It is next submitted that though Vikram

initially when his statement was recorded, disclosed how the

occurrence was committed, but then he did not take the name of

the petitioner, but subsequently the police filed an application

before the learned trial court alleging that Vikram is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
4/11

cooperating in the investigation and thus his remand is required

and thereafter Vikram was taken on remand when he disclosed

that petitioner was close to Rakesh and they used to speak to

each other and they can only disclose the amount of contract

money. It is further submitted that Vikram even in his custodial

interrogation did not allege that contract money was given by

the petitioner for getting the occurrence committed. It is further

submitted that petitioner came to be implicated based on the

interrogation made by the police after seeking remand of

Vikram though Vikram initially had not alleged anything against

the petitioner. It is next submitted that though statement of

Vikram was recorded two months after the occurrence, but then

police without any material transpiring during the course of

investigation connecting the petitioner with the offence, had

already sought process under Section 82 Cr.P.C against the

petitioner. The said process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was sought

within 6 days of the occurrence, which amply demonstrates that

the police was in haste. It is also submitted that since process

under section 82 Cr.P.C was already sought by the police, as

such police in order to justify implication of the petitioner got

Vikram on remand and made him confess, as recorded

hereinabove. It is also submitted that during course of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
5/11

investigation, it also transpired that Vikram had taken a house

nearby to the residence of the deceased and in the said house,

Rakesh, Ranjay and Satyam used to come, but then Vikram in

his confessional statement does not disclose this fact that

petitioner used to visit the said residence. It is next submitted

that statemnet of caretakers of the room which was given to

Vikram on rent, was recorded under section 183 BNSS and the

caretaker Dhanraj and Chaman in their statement recorded under

Section 183 BNSS have stated that Rakesh, Ranjay and Satyam

used to visit Vikram and the persons who use to come, use to

address each other by name and he heard one name Dhananjay

also. It is next submitted that statement of Ranjay and Satyam

was also recorded by the police under Section 180 BNSS, as

would manifest from para-440 of the case diary. It is submitted

that from perusal of the statement of Ranjay and Satyam, it

would manifest that they have also not disclosed that the

occurrence was committed at the behest of the petitioner though

they have stated that whenever any dispute arose in between

petitioner and other person in that event the petitioner used to

call them for help and they also stated that Rakesh used to meet

the petitioner. It is further submitted that statement of father of

Vikram namely Rajan was also recorded under section 180
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
6/11

BNSS, wherein he for the first time disclosed that petitioner had

given contract to Rakesh money for getting the occurrence

committed of killing the son of the informant.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further

submits that it was after Vikram disclosed that contract money

for getting the occurrence committed was paid after he was

taken on remand, it was thereafter that confession of his father

Rajan was recorded, who disclosed that contract money was

given by the petitioner. It is also submitted that material which

transpired during the course of investigation does not connect

the petitioner with the offence except for confession of Rajan. It

is next submitted no doubt two cases were instituted against the

petitioner also earlier by the side of the informant but then

police after investigation found both the cases to be false and

thus submitted closure report. It is further submitted that

petitioner had purchased a piece of land adjacent to the house of

the deceased and some dispute had arisen in between the two

but then that in itself cannot be a justification for the petitioner

for getting occurrence of murder committed knowing very well

that what consequences would entail in the event if he is

implicated in a case of murder. It is next submitted that though

in the FIR it is alleged that son of the informant had recorded a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
7/11

message in his mobile alleging suspicion against the named

accused persons of committing his murder, but then when the

police asked for the mobile from the informant, the same was

not handed over to the police. It is further submitted that even a

sanha was instituted by wife of the deceased in the police station

stating therein that the mobile is lost, but then a message of the

deceased in a pen drive was handed over to the police, which

the informant claims to be recorded from the recorded message

of the deceased in his mobile, but then the mobile, i.e., primary

evidence was never provided to the police for reasons best

known to the informant, as such primary evidence was missing.

It is also submitted that if the recorded message of the deceased

was transferred in a pen drive and handed over to the police,

then why the said mobile was not handed over to the police

which could have facilitated the investigation. It is asserted and

submitted that petitioner being a government servant will not

abscond and the manner in which police obtained process under

section 82 Cr.P.C, amply demonstrates that police was in a hurry

to close the case and in mechanical manner the learned trial

court also issued process under section 82 Cr.P.C, as recorded

hereinabove, when the purpose of process under Section 82

Cr.P.C is to ensure appearance of the accused before the court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
8/11

and not before the police. It is next submitted that the station

house officer, Mehsoul PS and the Investigating Officer of the

case in compliance of the order dated 28-11-2025 were present

in the Court on 5-12-2025 and had disclosed that no technical

investigation has been conducted to connect the petitioner with

the offence.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that as far as technical investigation is concerned, the CDR of

the petitioner was investigated by the police, as would manifest

from the case diary, but then no material transpired connecting

him with the offence. It is reiterated and submitted that

petitioner being government servant is aware of the

consequences which would entail in the event if he absconds or

does not cooperate with the police in the investigation. It is also

submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate

in the investigation.

8. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for

anticipatory bail of the petitioner, but then are not in a position

to rebut the submission made by the learned senior counsel for

the petitioner with regard to confessional statement of Vikram,

Ranjay and Satyam, but then the learned counsel appearing on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
9/11

behalf of the informant submits that statement of caretaker

Dhanraj and Chaman was recorded under Section 183 BNSS

wherein they have taken the name of the petitioner, on which the

learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that if the

statement of Dhanraj and Chaman is read in its context, it would

manifest that they have stated that they overheard the person

coming to the place addressing each other by their name and

one name they took was of Dhananjay, but then the said

statement by itself would not be a justification for sending the

petitioner to judicial custody.

9. Learned counsel for the informant further submits

that since during the course of investigation it has come that this

petitioner had given contract money to Rakesh for getting the

occurrence committed as such his custodial interrogation is

required and seizure of his mobile is also necessary.

10. The said submission of the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the informant is vehemently rebutted by

the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

It is next submitted that petitioner is a government servant and

the manner in which his name has transpired has already been

recorded hereinabove. It is reiterated and submitted that police

within six days of the occurrence got the process under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
10/11

82 Cr.P.C issued against the petitioner, thereafter Vikram

disclosed that petitioner was close to Rakesh and they used to

speak to each other but then had not disclosed that petitioner

had given contract money to Rakesh, but subsequently police

arrested the father of Vikram, namely, Rajan as recorded

hereinabove, who disclosed that contract money was given by

the petitioner to Rakesh, but then it is submitted that it

absolutely does not stand to reason that if money was given by

the petitioner to Rakesh for getting the occurrence committed

why the said fact was not disclosed by Vikram, but by his father

which amply demonstrates that police somehow tried to connect

the petitioner with the offence.

11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or

surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six

weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing

bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two

sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

trial court where the case is pending/successor court in

connection with Mehsaul P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025, subject to

the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

12. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65688 of 2025(7) dt.16-01-2026
11/11

Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the

learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner,

despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the

investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at

liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

13. It is further made clear that in the event if charge-

sheet is submitted and the learned trial court comes to a

conclusion that petitioner is not cooperating in framing of

charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in

any manner, in both the conditions the learned trial court shall

be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned

police station through the learned Trial Court.

(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…