Patna High Court
Dhanu Kumar @ Dhnu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied the petitioner’s regular bail application, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents warranted continued custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhanu Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, relating to the murder of his brother Prince. Although his name does not appear in the FIR, the investigating officer stated that the petitioner was identified by witnesses and the deceased during the investigation. The petitioner has multiple antecedent criminal cases and has been in custody since October 2025. The counsel for the informant highlighted that a co‑accused, Umesh Mishra, had been granted bail in a separate matter, but argued the petitioner’s case is distinct. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, finding the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal history warranted continued detention.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑inclusion in the FIR but subsequent identification during investigation affects his eligibility for bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent criminal cases and the nature of the alleged offence justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- investigation
- BNS Act
- antecedent cases
- offence seriousness
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6661 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran
======================================================
Dhanu Kumar @ Dhnu Kumar Son of Kanhaiya Mahto Resident of Village -
Paschimari Rauja, P.S.- Town, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Pratik, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Town
P.S. Case No.185/2025, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The Station House Officer-cum-Investigating
Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 22.04.2026,
is present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and is in custody since
16.10.2025 and the informant alleges that 09.04.2025, his
brother Prince was seen with Arbaz Ali but then his brother did
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6661 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
2/4
not return home, as such on 10.04.2025 a search was made,
when his dead body was found near diyara area of Saryu river
and after seeing the body, it appeared that he was assaulted by
sharp edged weapon, further alleges based on suspicion that
named accused persons in the FIR may be involved in the
occurrence.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and
during the course of investigation his name transpired. The
Station House Officer-cum-Investigating Officer of the case,
who is present in the court, agrees with the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired
during the course of investigation. It is submitted that deceased
had made a last call to one Umesh as such the Investigating
Officer called Umesh, who disclosed that while he was talking
to the deceased he heard some voice from behind and thus asked
who was present with him, on which, the deceased disclosed
that it was this petitioner. It is also submitted that even Sangeeta
and Meena during the course of investigation have stated that
they had seen this petitioner accompanying the deceased. It is
further submitted that during course of investigation, it also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6661 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
3/4
transpired that the deceased was giving tuition to the niece of
one Umesh Mishra and they had developed some kind of a bond
which was being objected by Umesh for which Umesh even had
gone to the house of the deceased and had threatened him but
then the deceased did not mend his ways as such he contacted
this petitioner who had taken some loan from Umesh Mishra for
getting the occurrence committed. It is submitted that the dead
body was recovered with mark of injury.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner does not dispute the said submission of the S.H.O.-
cum-I.O. of the case but then submits that Umesh Mishra has
been granted the privilege of regular bail by an order dated
10.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.59181/2025 by a learned coordinate
Bench, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that the case of this petitioner is different
from the case of Umesh Mishra as during the course of
investigation it has come that it was this petitioner who
committed the occurrence of killing the deceased. It is next
submitted that petitioner has antecedent of four cases and not
three cases.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6661 of 2026(3) dt.01-05-2026
4/4
8. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
9. The personal appearance of the SHO-cum-I.O. of
the case is dispensed with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…