Patna High Court
Diaspi Kumar @ DSP @ DSP KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the sole reliance on a co‑accused’s confessional statement does not warrant continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, DSP Diaspi Kumar, was arrested in connection with a murder case (S.Tr. No. 99 of 2024) alleged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR accuses him, along with co‑accused, of killing the wife of an informant, but the investigation produced only a confessional statement by co‑accused Rahul Kumar and no other substantive material. The petitioner contended that the FIR was lodged against an unknown person and that the case against him rests solely on the co‑accused’s statement, which lacks evidentiary value. Two other co‑accused, Rekha Devi and Rahul Kumar, had already been granted regular bail, and only one prosecution witness had been examined to date. Considering the lack of corroborative evidence, the prolonged custody since 20‑01‑2025, and the bail granted to the other accused, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with trial‑court attendance conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner when the only material against him is a confessional statement of a co‑accused.
- Whether the absence of corroborative evidence and the bail granted to co‑accused justify release on bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- evidence
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73133 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2024 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna
======================================================
Diaspi Kumar @ DSP @ DSP Kumar S/O Tula Singh R/O Hajipur Dumri,
P.S- Fatuha, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Patanjali Rishi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the
petitioner in connection with S.Tr. No. 99 of 2024 arising out of
Pandarakh P.S. Case no.99 of 2024 registered under sections
302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that the petitioner in
association of other co-accused is said to have killed the wife of
the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
F.I.R has been lodged against unknown. During the course
of investigation, four witnesses were examined under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73133 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
Section 161 Cr.P.C, who made no disclosure about
assailants. Subsequently, as reflected in paragraph no. 16 of
the case diary, on the basis of information allegedly
received from a spy, it transpired that the husband of co-
accused Rekha Devi had some illicit relations with the
deceased which was creating some discord between the
deceased and Rekha Devi. It is further submitted that the
implication of the present petitioner has arisen solely on the
basis of the alleged confessional statement of co-accused
Rahul Kumar, wherein it has been stated that co-accused
Rekha Devi had hired the services of the present petitioner
to eliminate the deceased. It is contended that the entire
case against the petitioner rests upon the confessional
statement of a co-accused with no cogent or supportive
material collected during the course of investigation to
substantiate the said allegation. It is further submitted that
both the co-accused Rekha Devi and Rahul Kumar have
already been granted the privilege of regular bail by the
bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.02.2025 and
28.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 83781 of 2024 and
78239 of 2024. The petitioner is in custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73133 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
20.01.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State on the ground that there are material against
the petitioner showing his involvement.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the
only material collected during course of investigation is the
confessional statement made before police which has no
evidentiary value and petitioner is in custody since 20.01.2025
coupled with the fact that two other co-accused persons have
already been granted bail by aforesaid orders dated 05.02.2025
and 28.02.2025 and only one witness has been examined till
date on behalf of the prosecution and there is no likelihood to
conclude the same in the near future, the petitioner is directed to
be enlarged on bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 99 of 2024
arising out of Pandarakh P.S. Case no.99 of 2024 on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court concerned where the case is pending/successor Court,
subject to the condition that the petitioners shall remain
properly represented in the learned trial Court on each date and
shall cooperate in the trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73133 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, the learned
trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…