Patna High Court
Brajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail as the only material against him is a co‑accused’s confessional statement and no direct participation in the offence is established.
Summary
The petitioner, Brajesh Kumar, was arrested in connection with a murder investigation where a co‑accused’s confessional statement implicated him for concealing a weapon used in the crime. The prosecution alleged his involvement under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 54, 351(3) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that he merely disclosed the location of the weapon to police and had not participated in any assault, arguing that the only evidence against him was the co‑accused’s statement. He also pointed out that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail in earlier cases and that he had been in judicial custody since August 2024. The court, after considering the lack of direct incriminating evidence and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, decided to enlarge the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The order directs the bail to be effected by the District & Additional Sessions Judge‑II, Saharsa.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the confessional statement of a co‑accused linking him to the concealment of the weapon.
- Whether the nature of the charges under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and the Arms Act warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 351(3), 54, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- weapon concealment
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal procedure
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80384 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2024 Thana- BANGAWON District- Saharsa
======================================================
Brajesh Kumar Son of Suchen Yadav @ Shochin Yadav @ Suchan Yadav R/o
Village- Garahiapatti Ward No. 10, P.S.- Bangaon, District- Sahrsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with ST. No. 53 of 2025 arising out of Bangaon P.S. Case No.
106 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
103(1), 61(2), 54, 351(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that
unknown miscreants killed the father of the informant while he
was in a salon. The name of this petitioner has surfaced during
the course of investigation in the confessional statement of the
co-accused, namely, Ashish Kumar. In the confessional
statement of Ashish Kumar, it has come out that he gave the
weapon of assault to the petitioner for concealing the same in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80384 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
the house of Hariom.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
case. From perusal of paragraph 66 of the case diary, it
transpires that this petitioner has disclosed to the police that the
weapon of assault has been concealed in the house of Hariom,
and the same was recovered from the house of Hariom. Learned
counsel for the petitioner also submits that earlier the bail
petition of this petitioner was rejected vide order dated
04.04.2025 with an observation that the petitioner is at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not
concluded. It has also been submitted that the stage of trial has
been called for from the learned trial court, according to which
four witnesses have been examined and four remain to be
examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
the only material against the petitioner that has come through
the confessional statement of the co-accused is that he has
concealed the weapon of assault in the house of Hariom. There
is no allegation against this petitioner of making any assault
with the weapon of assault. It has further been submitted that
similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Raja Kumar,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80384 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
Santosh Kumar, and Anil Yadav, have also been granted bail by
the coordinate bench of this court as well as by this court in Cr.
Misc. Nos. 15604 of 2025, 74652 of 2025, and 9899 of 2025,
respectively. The case of this petitioner stands on similar
footing. He further submits that the petitioner is languishing in
judicial custody since 20.08.2024.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District
& Additional Sessions Judge-II, Saharsa in connection with S.T.
No. 53 of 2025 arising out of Bangaon P.S. Case No. 106 of
2024.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…