Patna High Court
Prakash Jha @ Prakash Kumar Jha @ Jai Prakash Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Jha, was charged with murder (IPC s.302), criminal conspiracy (IPC s.120B) and illegal possession of a firearm (Arms Act s.27) after his husband was shot dead. The informant, the deceased's wife, alleged that a colleague, Raj Kamal Thakur, had a motive to kill her husband and that the petitioner may have been involved, based largely on confessional statements of co‑accused. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the evidence was weak, noting only a single chest wound and that the informant was not an eye‑witness, and that the main accusation should be against Raj Kamal Thakur, who had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail, relying on the confessional statements implicating the petitioner. Considering the lack of direct evidence and the petitioner’s prolonged custody since June 2024, the court ordered his release on regular bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged under IPC sections 302 and 120B and Arms Act section 27.
- Whether the confessional statements of co‑accused and the informant’s testimony constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- evidence
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73792 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2024 Thana- MADHUBANI TOWN District-
Madhubani
======================================================
Prakash Jha @ Prakash Kumar Jha @ Jai Prakash Kumar Jha, S/O Bhola Jha,
Resident of village -Thadhi, P.S- Andhara Thadhi, Dist.- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. ubhash Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that while
the informant was cooking food at her house, she heard the
sound of firing when she came out from her house, she found
that her husband received gun shot injury and was in a pool of
blood. She took her husband to the hospital with the help of
neighbors where husband was declared dead. It is further
alleged that her husband was working in Maharani Honda
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73792 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/4
Agency from last ten years as an Accountant. Her husband was
told her 2-3 days prior to the occurrence that one of the
colleague, Raj Kamal Thakur has defalcated Rs. 1,80,000/- of
the company regarding which he had knowledge and told him
not to disclose it to the owner. He was promised to give share in
that defalcated money but when the husband of the informant
denied, Raj Kamal Thakur has threatened him of consequences.
The informant believes that her husband was killed by tRaj
Kamal Thakur by hatching a conspiracy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He
has falsely been implicated in the present case. From perusal of
the F.I.R., it is clear that the deceased was having enmity with
one Raj Kamal Thakur. The informant is not the eye witness of
this case. During course of investigation, only on the basis of
confessional statement of the petitioner and other co-accused
persons, the name of this petitioner has surfaced in this case. It
has further been submitted that as per the confessional
statement, the role which is attributed against the petitioner is
that he has fired from the back. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that from perusal of the postmortem
report it will transpire that there is only one entry wound i.e. on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73792 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
3/4
the chest. It has further been submitted that the petitioner and
one Raj Kamal Thakur both were apprehended. From a room
and from the possession of this petitioner, one country made
pistol was recovered. It has further been submitted that main
thrust of allegation is against co-accused Raj Kamal Thakur who
has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
26.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.No. 70354 of 2025. The case of
the petitioner stands on better footing. Moreover, the petitioner
is languishing in judicial custody since 01.06.2024. It has also
been submitted that in this case, during trial the informant has
been examined as P.W. 6 and from perusal of the evidence of
informant it is clear that informant has stated that she came out
of her house after hearing the sound of firing and saw that
Dheeraj Kumar (deceased) has received gunshot injury. The
gunshot injury was near nipple of the left side. She has further
stated that Raj Kamal Thakur and others have threatened her, if
she will go to hospital, she and her children will be killed. Main
thrust of allegation in her examination-in-chief is against co-
accused Raj Kamal Thakur. In para 55 of the case diary, this
witness has stated that she has seen that part of the occurrence
where three persons were fled away after firing. She heard the
sound of firing in her room and came out of the room. As she
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73792 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
4/4
reached near her husband, she found no one there. It has also
been submitted that from the evidence of the informant, it is
quite clear that she is not the eye witness.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer
of regular bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted
that there is allegation against the petitioner is that he has fired
at the deceased which has emerged from the confessional
statement of the petitioner and co-accused persons.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on
bail in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 225 of
2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-3rd, Madhubani with the
condition that petitioner shall cooperate in trial and shall
remain physically present on each and every date.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…