Patna High Court
Dilkhus Kumar @ DilwaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the material on record was insufficient to justify pre‑arrest bail and therefore dismissed the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Dilkhus Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The only incriminating material against him was a confessional statement of co‑accused Sajan Kumar and call‑detail records showing four calls between Sajan’s phone and a number allegedly used by the petitioner on the date of the alleged murder. The petitioner argued that the mobile number was not registered in his name and that there was no prior contact, asserting a clean antecedent. The State contended that the repeated contact on the day of the offence indicated complicity and opposed bail. The court found that the evidence was circumstantial, not conclusive, and that the investigation was still ongoing, thus pre‑arrest bail could not be granted. The court directed the petitioner to surrender before the District Court and seek regular bail, and dismissed the pre‑arrest bail application.
Issues considered
- Can pre‑arrest bail be granted when the only evidence is a co‑accused’s confessional statement and limited CDR data?
- Does telephonic contact on the date of the alleged offence establish sufficient grounds for pre‑arrest bail denial?
- Is the lack of prior contact and the mobile number not being registered in the petitioner’s name sufficient to create reasonable doubt?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- confessional statement
- call detail records
- circumstantial evidence
- investigation
- bail discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68608 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- Chhaudahi District- Begusarai
======================================================
Dilkhus Kumar @ Dilwa S/O Rambabu Yadav Resident of Village- Rajapur,
Police Station- Garhpura, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik, Advocate
For the Informant : Ms. Shrishti Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Pratik, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Satyendra Prasad, learned APP for
the State and Ms. Shrishti Rani, learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Chhaurahi P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner has surfaced
on the basis of confessional statement of one co-accused Sajan
Kumar, from whose possession mobile phone bearing no.
9507030517 was recovered, which C.D.R. report confirms that
the said Sajan Kumar was in contact with the deceased, whose
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68608 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
mobile phone number is 6200415144. He further submitted that
save and except the confessional statement of co-accused Sajan
Kumar, nothing has been collected in course of investigation
against the petitioner. The C.D.R. report of the mobile phone of
the co-accused Sajan Kumar reflects that he was in contact with
the petitioner's mobile phone no. 7009705040 four time on the
alleged date of commission of murder i.e. on 05.06.2025 but the
same doesn't reflects that petitioner was in contact with him
anytime before the alleged date of commission of offence. There
is no specific material on record to demonstrate that the said
mobile number, which is not registered in the name of the
petitioner, was being used by the petitioner. Petitioner has clean
antecedent. On these grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on
pre-arrest bail.
4. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of
the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest
bail to the petitioner and referring to paragraph no. 54 of the
case diary submitted that the name of the petitioner has surfaced
on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Sajan
Kumar, who was in contact with the petitioner regularly on the
date of alleged commission of murder i.e. on 05.06.2025 and the
same is supported by their C.D.R. report mentioned at paragraph
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68608 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
no. 162 of the case diary. He further submitted that petitioner
has not made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Adopting the argument of the learned A.P.P.,
learned counsel for the informant submitted that there are
materials, which have come against the petitioner and
petitioner's complicity cannot be denied in the commission of
alleged murder.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties and upon perusal of the allegations made in the
FIR, as well as the case diary, it appears that certain materials
have surfaced against the petitioner during the course of
investigation that on the alleged date of commission of murder
i.e. on 05.06.2025, the petitioner was in repeated telephonic
contact with the co-accused, Sajan Kumar on his mobile phone
bearing no. 9507030517.However, it is not clearly established
whether the mobile phone bearing No. 7009705040, which is
alleged to have been used by the petitioner, can conclusively
linked him with crime. The Investigating Officer has not been
able to collect any Call Detail Records (CDR) indicating that
prior to the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner was in
contact with the co-accused, Sajan Kumar.However, in the absence
of cogent and reliable material collected during the course of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68608 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
investigation, which is still ongoing, it would be premature to
conclude, solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, that the
petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may
surrender before the learned District Court and seek regular bail.
In that case, the learned District Court is directed to consider his
bail application on the same day and pass necessary order on
the basis of material collected in course of investigation, as well
as, considering the settled principle of law that on mere
suspicion, the petitioner has been made accused in the present
case, whose name has surfaced on the basis of confessional
statement made by co-accused.
8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…