Patna High Court

Jai Prakash Kumar @ GoldenversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The petitioner is not entitled to bail and the bail petition is rejected.

Summary

The petitioner, Jai Prakash Kumar, was charged under several sections of the BNS for an incident on 1 January 2025 in which he and others allegedly assaulted an informant's family, resulting in the death of the informant's wife. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with lathis and iron rods, inflicted two head injuries on the deceased, leading to her death. The petitioner argued that the incident stemmed from a petty water‑drainage dispute, was not pre‑meditated, and amounted only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries and noting that a co‑accused's bail had already been denied by a coordinate bench. The court, after reviewing the post‑mortem findings and the circumstances, concluded that the petitioner did not merit the privilege of bail and rejected the bail application, directing the lower court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a case of alleged culpable homicide resulting in death
Whether the nature of the injuries and the circumstances justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3)

Subjects

bail
culpable homicide
murder
post-mortem
injuries
premeditation
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68846 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Jai Prakash Kumar @ Golden S/O Jagdish Singh R/O Village- Jatan Bigha,
                 P.S.- Akaurigola, District- Rohtas                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar Patna                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Soni Kumari, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
                 PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   05-02-2026                    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

                   the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection

                   with Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2),

                   115(2), 117(2), 109 and 103 of the BNS.

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on

                   01.01.2025 at about 5 PM, all the F.I.R. named accused persons,

                   including this petitioner, armed with lathi, danda and iron rod,

                   came to the house of informant and started abusing wife of

                   informant. Upon objection, all the F.I.R. named accused persons,

                   including this petitioner, assaulted informant and his family

                   members as a result of which they sustained injuries and during

                   course of treatment, wife of informant died.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

                   that the occurrence arose due to a petty dispute over the drainage
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68846 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     of water. The incident, according to the submissions of the learned

                     counsel, was not premeditated and is a case of culpable homicide

                     not amounting to murder. He has further submitted that there were

                     only two injuries on the head of the deceased.

                                   5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

                     informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the

                     two injuries on the head of the deceased are corroborated against

                     the petitioner and co-accused Ravi Kumar. The bail petition of

                     Ravi Kumar has already been rejected by a Coordinate Bench of

                     this Court.

                                   6. From perusal of the post-mortem report, it appears

                     that two injuries were found on the head of the deceased. The first

                     is a lacerated wound measuring four inches on the back side of the

                     scalp and the second is on the temporal region of the deceased,

                     which corroborates the allegation.

                                   7.   Considering       the    above-mentioned   facts   and

                     circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of

                     bail, which is hereby rejected.

                                   8. The learned court below is directed to expedite the

                     trial.


                                          (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Nirmal/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…