Patna High Court

Surya PrakashversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 26 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court denied regular bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Surya Prakash, was arrested in connection with a murder case (PS Harnaut Case No. 10 of 2020) involving offences under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was not named in the FIR, but his name appeared in the confessional statement of co‑accused Dheeraj during investigation. The petitioner, who has four prior criminal cases, sought regular bail, arguing that a confessional statement of an accused in police custody lacks evidentiary value and that the co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s antecedents and the risk of absconding justified denial. The High Court, after hearing both sides, refused to grant bail, stating the petitioner could re‑apply after charge framing.

Issues considered

Whether a person not named in the FIR but implicated through a co‑accused's confessional statement is eligible for regular bail.
Whether the confessional statement of an accused in police custody can be relied upon for bail considerations.
Whether the petitioner’s antecedent criminal cases and alleged risk of absconding warrant denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34

Subjects

bail
confessional statement
murder
IPC
Arms Act
antecedent cases
regular bail
charge framing

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74806 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2020 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Surya Prakash S/o Bablu Kumar @ Padri Singh R/o Village- Pandark,
                 Surajpur Tola, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   26-02-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2.    The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Harnaut PS Case No. 10 of 2020 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of IPC and Section

                   27 of Arms Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner has antecedent of four cases and is in custody since

                   19-8–2025. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that

                   on 10-1-2020 at about 1:15 pm, while he was near the cement

                   godown, when two accused on a motorcycle came and

                   indiscriminately fired killing his son Gautam.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74806 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                            2/3




          during the course of investigation in the confessional statement

          of Dheeraj, who disclosed that this petitioner was also involved

          in killing the deceased by resorting to firing.         It is next

          submitted that confessional statement of an accused in police

          custody does not have any evidentiary value. It is further

          submitted that Dheeraj has already been granted the privilege of

          regular bail by this Court. It is thus submitted that the person in

          whose confession the name of the petitioner transpired has been

          granted the privilege of regular bail as such petitioner be also

          extended the same benefit.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P., Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, for

          the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the

          petitioner and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands

          admitted is that son of the informant died and the informant has

          not named the petitioner in the FIR, which amply demonstrates

          that informant had no intention of implicating the petitioner, but

          then his name transpired in the confessional statement of co-

          accused during the course of investigation. It is also submitted

          that petitioner has antecedent of four serious cases and in the

          event if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the

          petitioner may abscond.

                   6.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74806 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
                                                          3/3




                        the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

                                 7.     Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is

                        rejected.

                                 8.     However, the petitioner would be at liberty to

                        renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…