Patna High Court
ABHISHEK KUMAR @ NINI @ CHHOTU KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhishek Kumar, sought bail in a case where he was charged under IPC Sections 363, 365, 302, 201 and 34 for allegedly assaulting and killing the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused Suraj Tiwari, lured the victim from his house and the victim’s body was recovered the next day. The petitioner argued that there was no eye‑witness, the victim had a criminal background and could have been killed due to other enmities, and that the charge‑sheet had already been filed. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing confessional statements of co‑accused, the fact that the trial had already begun and two witnesses had been examined, and a prior order denying bail to a similarly situated co‑accused. The Court, considering the ongoing trial and prior precedent, rejected the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite examination of the remaining witnesses using coercive processes.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 363, 365, 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC.
- Whether the commencement of trial and examination of witnesses justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail to a co‑accused influences the decision on the petitioner’s bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34, 363, 365
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC sections 363 365 302 201 34
- trial commencement
- witness examination
- coercive process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81363 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-396 Year-2024 Thana- MANER District- Patna
======================================================
ABHISHEK KUMAR @ NINI @ CHHOTU KUMAR Son of Late Durga
Rai @ Daroga Rai Resident of Village- Milkipar, P.S.- Shahpur at Present
Neora, District- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of the
Indian Penal Code, later on Section 302, 201 and 34 of the
I.P.C. was added.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along
with other co-accused persons is accused of assaulting and
killed the deceased.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the name of the petitioner has been taken along with one
Suraj Tiwari with the allegation that they had called the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81363 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
2/3
deceased from his house and taken him away for some party.
However, the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the
next day and the petitioner is not responsible for the death of
the deceased as it is only a case of last seen and there is no eye-
witness to the occurrence. It has also been submitted that the
deceased was of a criminal background and as such, he had
several enemies and his death could be result of enmity with
other persons. The petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2025 and
the charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant opposed the grant of bail on the
ground that not only there are allegations made in the First
Information Report but also materials have transpired during
the course of investigation in the form of confessional
statement of co-accused. Further, the trial has also commenced
and two witnesses have already been examined and the prayer
of bail of similarly situated co-accused, Suraj Tiwary has
already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.83676 of
2024.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstance and also considering the fact that the trial has also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81363 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
3/3
commenced and two witnesses have already been examined, as
such, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby
rejected in connection with Maner P.S. Case No.396 of 2024.
7. However, since the informant had admitted in
the said order dated 02.07.2025 that rest of the three witnesses
would be examined on the dates fixed in the case but it seems
that they have still not been examined, as such, the learned
Trial Court is directed to take all coercive processes for getting
the prosecution witnesses examined and concluding the trial
expeditiously.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…