Patna High Court
Sudhanshu ShekharversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the case is based on mere suspicion without substantive evidence, and therefore granted bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Sudhanshu Shekhar, a Blinkit manager, was arrested in connection with the murder of a Blinkit delivery boy, the younger brother of an informant. He was charged under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 27, 25(1‑Ba), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case rests on suspicion, a co‑accused’s confession that Shekhar helped conceal the firearm and advised the main accused to flee, and no eye‑witness or substantive CCTV evidence linking him to the killing. The petitioner argued lack of direct involvement and no prior criminal record, seeking bail. The High Court held that the evidence was insufficient to justify continued detention and, applying bail principles, ordered his release on bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a murder case where the accused is alleged to have assisted in concealing a firearm.
- Whether the material on record establishes sufficient grounds for continued pre‑trial detention.
- Application of bail provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- arms act
- suspicion
- concealment of firearm
- pre‑trial detention
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75483 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-446 Year-2025 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna
======================================================
Sudhanshu Shekhar S/O Badri Narayan Choudhary Resident of Buddha
Colony, Dashrath More, P.S- Hundi, District- Madhubani at present residing
at Service Centre Gali, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel,
assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar, for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Nayan,
learned APP for the State and Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad,
learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 103(1)/61(2)/3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act
but, subsequently, Section 25 (1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act
has been added.
3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the younger
brother of the informant was shot dead, who was working as
Blinkit delivery guy.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner, at the outset, that the first information report is based
only on suspicion as the deceased was working with the Blinkit
and the petitioner happened to be the Manager of the Blinkit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75483 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
2/3
Store and other co-accused, Akash Kumar was also working in
the Blinkit along with the deceased. It is further submitted that
even during the course of investigation the CCTV footage of
different places and times have been looked into but no
substantive or cogent material has been collected, which would
indicate that the petitioner was in any way directly involved in
the offence. At best, looking into the confessional statement of
the co-accused, Akash Kumar, which has been recorded in para-
215 of the case diary where he has said to have admitted his
guilt. It would further transpire that after having committed the
offence he has disclosed the same to the petitioner, who, in his
bid to help him, had asked him to conceal the firearm and even
asked him to to flee away. It is, thus, submitted that looking into
the entire material collected during the course of investigation,
the only fact which appears to be against the petitioner is that
after the commission of the offence he was indulged in
concealing the firearm and suggesting the co-accused, Akash
Kumar to flee away, as such there is no involvement of the
petitioner in killing of the deceased in any manner. The
petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing
in custody since 18.08.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant opposed the bail petition submitting
that there is material to show the complicity of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75483 of 2025(3) dt.12-02-2026
3/3
also.
6. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that after
going through the entire materials available on record, it appears
that the present case is based on suspicion with no eye-witness
to the incident and so far as the petitioner is concerned, at best,
there is an allegation of helping the main accused, Akash Kumar
in concealing the firearm after the occurrence took place, the
above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor
Court in connection with Gardanibagh P.S. Case No.446 of
2025, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall remain
physically present in court on each and every date till framing of
the charge and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be
cancelled by the learned court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…