Patna High Court
Vivek Kumar @ Viveka Kumar @ Viveka KrversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Vivek Kumar, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1), 62 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. for the alleged murder of two sons of an informant. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner’s confessional statement led to the recovery of a hammer and blood‑stained articles, but the defence points out that the statement was recorded before the FIR was lodged, raising questions about the procedural correctness. The State opposes bail, emphasizing that the case involves a double murder, that charges have already been framed, and that the petitioner is the alleged mastermind. The court noted the seriousness of the offence, the existence of material evidence, and the informant’s undertaking to produce witnesses promptly. Consequently, the court declined to grant bail, though it allowed the petitioner to renew the application if witnesses are not examined within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a double murder case where charges have been framed and material evidence exists.
- Whether the recording of the confessional statement prior to the FIR affects the validity of the prosecution’s case.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 3(5), 62
Subjects
- bail
- double murder
- confessional statement
- FIR
- charges framed
- witness examination
- investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73174 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2025 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Vivek Kumar @ Viveka Kumar @ Viveka Kr S/O Harsh Chaudhary Resident
of Vill.- Dadpur, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, (Tiyari O.P.), Dist.- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the
Opposite Party No. 2 .
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103 (1), 62 and 3 (5) of
B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, some unknown persons
brutally murdered the two sons of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
prosecution has tried to make out a case against the petitioner
that the confessional statement of the petitioner has led to
recovery of hammer and bloodstained articles which is not
correct in view of the fact that while the confessional statement
of the petitioner is said to have been recorded on 22.04.2025 at
5:10 a.m as indicated in paragraph 4 of the case diary, the First
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73174 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
Information Report itself would show that it was lodged on
22.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. which means that even prior to lodging
of the First Information Report, the said confessional statement
was recorded by the police. If such was the situation, there is no
reason why the F.I.R itself did not mention the names of the
accused persons as also the recovery of articles. Further, the
petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2025 and charges have
already been framed.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2, however, vehemently
oppose the grant of bail on the ground that it is a double murder
case in which two persons of the same family have been done to
death and this petitioner is the gotia who is responsible for the
said death. It is further undertaken by the counsel for the
informant that now as the charges have already been framed, he
would be producing his witnesses expeditiously and would not
take unnecessary adjournments.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the
present case involves murder of two persons and there is
material collected during investigation against the petitioner
and coupled with the undertaking given by the informant that he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73174 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
would expeditiously get the witnesses examined, this court is
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to renew
his prayer for bail in case substantial number of witnesses are
not examined within a period of three months.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.