Patna High Court
Aditya KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Aditya Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving murder (IPC s.302), concealment of offence (s.201), common intention (s.34) and illegal possession of arms (Arms Act s.27). The FIR was based on the informant’s suspicion that three persons called the victim before he was shot, and the petitioner was not named in the FIR; his alleged involvement stemmed from a confessional statement of another accused, which the court held lacks evidentiary value. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the informant was not an eyewitness and that the case rested on mere suspicion, while the State opposed bail. The court, applying Section 438(2) of the CrPC, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.50,000 bond, two sureties (including the petitioner’s father), and conditions that bail may be cancelled if the petitioner fails to cooperate or if a charge‑sheet links him to the offence. The order directed the trial court to enforce the bail conditions and to inform the police station.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of evidence in the FIR to justify denial of anticipatory bail?
- Does a confessional statement made in police custody provide sufficient basis to name the petitioner as an accused?
- Can anticipatory bail be granted under Section 438(2) CrPC despite serious charges under IPC and the Arms Act?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- suspicion
- confessional statement
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67209 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2024 Thana- GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR District-
Siwan
======================================================
Aditya Kumar S/O Rahul Kumar Resident of vill.- Jalalpur, P.S.- Siwan town,
Dist- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Kumari Anupam
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and
34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that on 18-6-
2024, his grandson received a call on his mobile and while leaving
the house, on asking of the informant, he disclosed that he had
been called by Ankit, Sachin and Manish and thereafter left the
house, further at 8 pm, he received an information that his
grandson has been shot and the police has taken him to Sardar
Hospital, accordingly he reached Sardar Hospital, where he came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67209 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
to know that his grandson has been killed, thus alleges based on
suspicion that Ankit, Sachin and Manish had called his grandson
and killed him.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf the
petitioner submits that the informant is not an eyewitness to the
occurrence and from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that entire allegation hinges around
suspicion. It is next submitted that petitioner is not named in the
FIR and his named transpired in the case based on confessional
statement of Manish in police custody which does not have any
evidentiary value. It is further submitted that Ankit had
approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc
No. 12797 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order
dated 28-3-2025 with certain conditions. It is submitted that
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event
of his arrest or surrender 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67209 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the
case is pending/successor court in connection with G.B. Nagar P.S.
Case No. 311 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father,
Rahul Kumar.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the
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, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
9. It is further made clear that if charge sheet is
submitted connecting the petitioner with the offence, in that event,
the present anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…