Patna High Court
Kishan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The application for regular bail was rejected.
Summary
Kishan Kumar applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 309(4), 309(6), 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR alleged that three accused, one of whom fired a pistol and injured the informant, also looted his mobile phone and motorcycle, but the informant could not identify the shooter. The petitioner claimed false implication, noting that although he was identified in a T.I. parade, he was not identified as the shooter and that there was a two‑month delay before the parade. The prosecution relied on the recovery of the stolen vehicle’s number plate based on the petitioner’s confession and the informant’s identification of the petitioner in the parade. The court, after hearing both sides, found the identification and confession sufficient to deny bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act in view of the FIR allegations and identification.
- Whether the delay in identification and the petitioner’s claim of false implication affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 309(4), 309(6)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- identification
- arms act
- trial expedite
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75608 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2025 Thana- BATHNAHA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Kishan Kumar Son of Late Tapeshwar Ram Resident of Village - Dihthi, P.S.-
Sahiyara, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case
no.271 of 2025 registered under sections 309(4), 309(6) and
109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that three accused persons came. Out of the three accused, one
of them fired with a pistol causing injury in his leg. The
informant was looted of his mobile phone and his motorcycle.
The informant states that he could not identify the accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. Though the
petitioner was identified in the T.I. parade by the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75608 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
neither he was identified as a person who fired upon him and
there is delay of two months since the arrest of the petitioner
and conduct of the T.I. parade. The petitioner is in custody since
21.6.2025 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation in the FIR, recovery of
the number plate of the stolen vehicle of the informant on the
basis of the confession of the petitioner together with the
informant having identified the petitioner in the T.I. parade
conducted, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on
bail and the application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…