Patna High Court

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 2 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted due to the specific and direct accusations, seriousness of the offence, and material uncovered during investigation.

Summary

The petitioners, Rahul Kumar and Munna Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a murder case registered under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution’s informant alleged that the petitioners, who are relatives of a woman named Baby Devi, participated in the killing of her lover, the deceased, after a family dispute. The petitioners contended they were innocent, had no direct involvement, and the informant was not an eye‑witness, emphasizing their clean antecedents. The State opposed bail, highlighting the specific accusations, the petitioners’ presence with the deceased on the day of the incident, and the seriousness of the offence. After considering the direct nature of the allegations, the gravity of the crime, and the investigative material, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners under the circumstances of the case?

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
murder
criminal procedure
Section 438 CrPC
gravity of offence
suspicions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73974 of 2025

                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
           1.    Rahul Kumar Son of Abhinandan Yadav Resident of Village -Gopalpur Ward
                 No.01 PS -Singheshwar Dist -Madhepura
           2.    Munna Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Son of Abhinandan Yadav Resident of
                 Village -Gopalpur Ward No.01 PS -Singheshwar Dist -Madhepura

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioners      :        Mr. Kamlesh Prasad Yadav, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   02-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238

                   and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

                                3. As per prosecution case, informant, namely

                   Ravindra Yadav, alleged that all the F.I.R. named accused

                   persons, including these petitioners, killed his son. The reason

                   for the occurrence is that the deceased had love affair with co-

                   accused Baby Devi and all the named accused persons,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73974 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
                                            2/3




          including these petitioners, who happen to be family members

          of Baby Devi, disliked and opposed the relationship.

                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and

          have committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to

          the occurrence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this

          case merely on suspicion. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

                       5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

          the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the

          F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that the deceased had love

          affair with co-accused Baby Devi and they used to frequently

          meet at village Gopalpur, which was not liked by the family

          members of co-accused Baby Devi and the accused persons

          also threatened the deceased and thereafter, a Panchayati was

          held. It is further submitted that on the date of occurrence, these

          petitioners were seen in the company of the deceased and

          thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence

          and materials that have surfaced during course of investigation,
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73974 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is

                       rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…