Patna High Court
Chandrabhushan KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, directing him to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandrabhushan Kumar, sought bail in a murder case (Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 109(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with an accused named Navin Kumar, was implicated in the killing of the informant’s son and daughter‑in‑law, based on statements of witnesses and a confessional statement by the petitioner in a separate case. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR only reflected the informant’s belief, and that no substantive evidence besides the confessional statement existed; he also pointed to bail being granted to co‑accused in similar cases. The State opposed bail, relying on witness statements linking the petitioner to the crime. After hearing both sides, the court found the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the B.N.S., 2023
- Whether the evidence on record, including witness statements and a confessional statement in another case, justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 109(1), 118(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S. 2023
- murder
- confessional statement
- judicial custody
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82411 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2025 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
======================================================
Chandrabhushan Kumar S/O Shlok Yadav @ Shlok Prasad Yadav R/O
Village- Meura, Post- Phulelpur, P.S.- Athmalgola, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Lalit, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Manish Kumar No. 13, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 118(1), 109(1), 3(5)
of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the
informant’s son and daughter-in-law were killed by unknown
miscreants. During course of investigation, one Navin Kumar
was apprehended and he has given his confessional statement.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82411 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
case. He also submits that in the FIR, it has been stated that the
informant believes that Navin Kumar and Chandrabhushan
Kumar are instrumental in the murder of his son and daughter-
in-law. He also submits that though it is stated that the informant
came to know about the petitioner and one Navin Kumar but
from the entire investigation, it is not clear as to who has
disclosed him that the petitioner and one Navin Kumar were
involved in the murder of the deceased. He also submits that
two witnesses have only suspected the role of this petitioner. He
further submits that this petitioner was apprehended in
Athmalgola P.S. case No. 52 of 2025 and in that case, he has
given his confessional statement. He further submits that save
and except the confessional statement of this petitioner in
Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 52 of 2025, nothing is against him.
He further submits that similarly situated co-accused namely,
Gulshan and Ganauri Kumar have already been granted bail by
the learned coordinate bench of this court as well as from this
court vide Cr. Misc. Nos. 64725 of 2025 and 43990 of 2025
respectively. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 04.02.2025.
5. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82411 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
the State. Learned counsel for the informant stated that during
the course of the investigation, in paragraphs 146 and 147 of the
case diary, the witnesses have stated that this petitioner is having
a role in the occurrence. From perusal of para-146 of the case
diary, Kajal Kumari has stated that Navin and the petitioner
have boarded her brother on their bike and have proceeded, and
in the last part, she stated that she believes that the petitioner
and Navin have killed her brother and sister-in-law. Likewise,
Manoj Yadav has also stated that he believes.
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
Additional District & Sessions Judge-III, Barh, Patna in
connection with S. Tr. No. 1905 of 2025 arising out of
Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 45 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…