Patna High Court

Devesh Kumar @ Davesh Kumar @ ChhotuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 February 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court held that bail could not be granted as the evidence sufficiently connected the petitioner to the alleged offence.

Summary

The petitioner, Devesh Kumar, was charged under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the alleged murder of an informant’s husband. The FIR initially named no suspect, but the petitioner was later identified from CCTV footage showing his motorcycle with two others at the scene. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the accusation was based on vague suspicion, noting that the principal conspirator’s statement did not mention him and that another accused had already been granted bail. The State and the informant opposed bail, relying on the CCTV identification, post‑mortem findings of firearm injuries, call‑detail records, and a confessional statement linking the petitioner to the crime. The Court examined the material evidence and the seriousness of the alleged offence. Concluding that sufficient incriminating material existed, the Court refused to grant bail, rejecting the petitioner’s application.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the existence of CCTV footage, call‑detail records, and a confessional statement linking him to the offence.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
B.N.S. — s. 103(1)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Arms Act
evidence
CCTV
confessional statement
call detail records

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75422 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHWARA District- Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
                 Devesh Kumar @ Davesh Kumar @ Chhotu S/o- Jatashankar Ray Village-
                 Batroul P.S.- Mahindwara, District- Sitamarhi.          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar                             ...... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Gulfeshan
                 For the State           :        Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
                 For the Informant                Mr. Padmanabh Kashyap
                                                  Mr. Deepak Kumar
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   16-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel

                   for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

                   State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S and Section

                   27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant’s

                   husband was killed by some known miscreants.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   first information report has been lodged against unknown and the

                   name of the petitioner has transpired subsequently on the basis of

                   CCTV footage in which the motorcycle of the petitioner was

                   identified. It has further been argued that the petitioner has been

                   made an accused merely on the basis of vague suspicion and as a

                   matter of fact, the main conspirator of the case Saheb Anwar

                   Quasmi has not mentioned the name of this petitioner and he has
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75422 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       also been granted bail by this Court. The petitioner is in custody

                       since 03.06.2025, charge-sheet has been submitted and the

                       cognizance has also been taken.

                                    5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the

                       informant have opposed the application for bail. It has been

                       submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the informant that

                       the petitioner along with two others on a motorcycle have been

                       identified in the CCTV footage and the postmortem report also

                       indicates that the deceased had died on account of firearm injuries

                       caused by firing bullets in three separate fire. Further, materials

                       against the petitioner is that the CDR discloses conversation

                       between the petitioner and other accused persons and in his

                       confessional statement also the petitioner has confessed his

                       complicity.

                                        6.    Taking     into    consideration   the   facts   and

                       circumstances and also considering the fact that there are serious

                       allegations of firing upon the deceased and there are materials

                       available in the case diary to connect him to the said offence, I am

                       not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

                       Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection

                       Singhwara P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025.


                                                     (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…