Patna High Court

Nitish Kumar @ Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 March 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

Bail was refused for the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, was arrested in connection with a 2017 FIR alleging murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. He remained absconding until his surrender on 24 March 2023, after which the charge was framed and trial commenced with four witnesses examined. The petitioner sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and that the allegations were fabricated. The State opposed bail, highlighting the serious nature of the charge, supporting medical evidence, and the petitioner’s prior absconding. The High Court, after considering the FIR, medical report, and trial court records, declined to grant bail, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case with supporting medical evidence and prior absconding.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC
Arms Act
trial delay
absconding

Judgment

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82000 of 2024
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2017 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui
                  ======================================================
                  Nitish Kumar @ Pintu Kumar Son of Mundrika Yadav @ Mundrika Prasad
                  R/O- Village- Manniyatri, P.S- Kauwakol, Distt.- Nawada... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                  The State of Bihar                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
                  For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                        ORAL ORDER

10   11-03-2026                     Heard Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the

                    petitioner,      learned     counsel       for     the     informant           and

                    Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                  2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                    24.03.2023 in connection with S.Tr.No.339 of 2023 arising out

                    of Chandradip P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017, F.I.R. dated 19.05.2017

                    registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read

                    with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of Arms

                    Act, 1959.

                                  3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was

                    rejected vide order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

                    60924 of 2023.

                                  4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                    submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation

                    as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner

                    has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82000 of 2024(10) dt.11-03-2026
                                            2/3




                       5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP

          for the State, on the other hand, on the basis of the material

          available on the record and the case diary, have vehemently

          opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that

          from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is direct and

          specific allegation of firing is attributed against the petitioner

          and the same is supported by the medical evidence (postmortem

          report) apart from the aforesaid, it appears that the FIR has been

          instituted in the year 2017 and since 2017 the petitioner was

          absconding and in the year 2023 he has surrendered on

          24.03.2023 and due to his absence the trial has not been

          concluded as yet and when the petitioner surrendered then the

          charge has been framed on 19.04.2023 and as per report of the

          learned Trial Court, the trial has begun and altogether four

          witnesses have already been examined.

                       6. Considering the nature of allegation against the

          petitioner in the FIR which is supported by the medical evidence

          as well report of the learned Trial Court, I am not inclined to

          enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with S.Tr.No.339 of

          2023 arising out of Chandradip P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017

          pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,

          Jamui.
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82000 of 2024(10) dt.11-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                                      7. Prayer is refused.

                                      8. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to

                         expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…