Patna High Court
Saurabh Kumar @ MamuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Hariom Kumar was granted bail while Saurabh Kumar's bail application was rejected.
Summary
The Patna High Court heard bail applications filed by Hariom Kumar and Saurabh Kumar in connection with Sessions Trial No. 813 of 2025, arising from Rajgir P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025 involving murder and offences under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the informant's brother was killed and that the petitioners were implicated, with Hariom Kumar said to be linked only through a mobile conversation and Saurabh Kumar through mobile location and a confessional statement. Hariom Kumar argued false implication, lack of eyewitnesses, clean antecedent and pointed to bail granted to similarly placed co‑accused. The court found the allegations against Hariom Kumar non‑specific, noted the grant of bail to co‑accused, and ordered his release on bail with conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. Conversely, the court held that the nature of the allegation against Saurabh Kumar, including recovery of a firearm at his instance, warranted denial of bail. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to Hariom Kumar under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. given the nature of the allegations and evidence.
- Whether bail should be granted to Saurabh Kumar in view of the confessional statement, mobile location evidence, and recovery of a firearm.
- Whether the non‑specific nature of the charge and the grant of bail to similarly placed co‑accused affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- Arms Act
- Section 480(3) B.N.S.S.
- confessional statement
- mobile location evidence
- non‑specific allegation
- co‑accused bail precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83165 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Hariom Kumar S/o Late Shambhu Kumar R/o Village- Naipokhar, P.S.-
Rajgir, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 86044 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2025 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Saurabh Kumar @ Mamu S/o Deena Prasad @ Guruji R/o - Naipokhar, P.S -
Rajgir, District - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 83165 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Kanchan Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Gopesh Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mrs. Rakchika Shekhar, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 86044 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mrs. Rakchika Shekhar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Since both the petitions arise out of Rajgir P.S. Case
No. 151 of 2025 they are taken up together and are being
disposed of by this common order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83165 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/6
02. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant.
03. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 813 of 2025, arising out of
Rajgir P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025 registered for the alleged
offences under Sections 103(1), 238(c), 61(2)(a), 3(5) of B.N.S.
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
04. As per prosecution case, the brother of the
informant went missing and later on, his dead body was
recovered from a well with bullet injuries. The informant
showed her suspicion against six persons named in the FIR. The
name of the petitioners transpired during investigation for being
involved in the murder of the brother of the informant.
05. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in
this case. The petitioners are not named in the FIR and they
have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner
Hariom Kumar is the cousin of the deceased and he has no
reason to kill him. Petitioner Hariom Kumar has no concern
with co-accused Saurabh Kumar and has been dragged in this
case merely on mobile conversation with him. It has further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83165 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/6
been submitted that there is no eye witness to the whole
occurrence and there is no enmity. Learned counsel for the
petitioner Hariom Kumar submits that he is having clean
antecedent and he is in custody since 22.03.2025. Charge sheet
has been submitted. Learned counsel further submits that
similarly placed co-accused persons Keshav Kumar, Harshit
Kumar and Keshav Kumar @ Bauna have been granted bail by
Co-ordinate Bench vide orders dated 12.12.2025 and 21.11.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 58673 of 2025 and 60226 of 2025,
respectively.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner
Saurabh Kumar @ Mamu suibmits that the name of the
petitioner came up during investigation on the basis of location
of mobile phone near the place of occurrence. The petitioner
was apprehended and his confessional statement was recorded
in which he admitted being the part of the mob which killed the
brother of the informant. Even if the confessional statement of
the petitioner is relied, the allegation against him is that he
caused injury in the hand of the deceased. Learned counsel
further submits that though the recovery of firearm used in the
crime has been shown at the instance of the petitioner, but the
said firearm has not been put to any test to check whether the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83165 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/6
same firearm was used to kill the brother of the informant.
The petitioner belongs to the same village and there is no
enmity. The petitioner has antecedent of three cases. He is in
custody since 22.03.2025 and charge sheet has been
submitted.
06. Learned APP as well as learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the
submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel
for the informant submits that the specific allegation against the
petitioner Saurabh Kumar is that recovery of firearm has been
made at his instance. There is no such recovery at the instance
of other petitioner. Learned counsel concedes that the case of
the petitioner Hariom Kumar is covered with similarly placed
co-accused persons, who have been granted bail, but the case of
petitioner Saurabh Kumar is different.
07. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering
the non-specific nature of allegation against the petitioner
Hariom Kumar with lack of substantive material against him
and also considering the grant of bail to the similarly placed co-
accused persons and further considering the period of custody,
his clean antecedent and submission of charge sheet, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83165 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
5/6
petitioner Hariom Kumar is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif/concerned
Court in connection with Sessions Trial No. 813 of 2025, arising
out of P.S. Case No. Rajgir P.S. Case No. 151 of 2025, subject to
the conditions mentioned in Section 480(3) of B.N.S.S. and also
the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close
relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present
on each and every date fixed by the
court below.
(iii) In case of absence on three
consecutive dates or in violation of the
terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled
by the court concerned.
08. However, considering the nature of allegation
and recovery of alleged firearm used at the instance of the
petitioner Saurabh Kumar @ Mamu, his prayer for bail is
rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83165 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
6/6
09. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the
trial and conclude it at the earliest.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…