Patna High Court
Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The confessional statement that led to the recovery of the victim's body is admissible, and therefore regular bail is denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar, was charged under sections 103(1), 238(b) and 3(5) of the BNS for the alleged murder of a girl who had gone missing while pursuing a GNM course. The prosecution relied on a confessional statement made by the petitioner to the police, which led to the recovery of the victim's body and incriminating material. The petitioner contended that the confessional statement was inadmissible and that he had no prior criminal record, seeking regular bail. The court held that the confessional statement, to the extent it resulted in the recovery of evidence, was admissible and that the seriousness of the allegations warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the petition for regular bail was rejected, with the petitioner allowed to reapply after six months if the trial remains pending, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether a confessional statement made to police is admissible as evidence in the present case.
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and the evidentiary material recovered.
- Whether the petitioner may be detained pending trial despite lack of prior criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 238(b), 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- confessional statement
- admissibility of evidence
- BNS
- sections 103, 238, 3
- criminal procedure
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87856 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-379 Year-2025 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Amit Kumar S/O Suresh Das Resident of village- Toygarh, P.S.- Barbigha,
District- Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Gopal Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 103 (1),
238 (b) and 3 (5) of the BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution is that daughter of the
informant, who was pursuing a GNM course went missing. It is
alleged that the petitioner was also pursuing the same course is
involved in her murder. The informant suspects that the
petitioner had killed her. During the Course of investigation, the
petitioner is said to have made a confessional statement and on
the basis of such confessional statement, the dead body of the
girl along with incriminating articles were recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87856 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
connection with the present case. It is further submitted that save
and except the confessional statement of his own, there is
nothing against him. It is also contended that the confessional
statement made before the police has no evidentiary value in the
eye of law. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 19.06.2025 having no criminal antecedent.
5. In this case, it is however apparent that pursuant to
the confessional statement of the petitioner, the dead body of
the girl and other incriminating materials including blood stained
clothes were recovered. Thus, the confessional statement to the
extent it led to the recovery is admissible evidence.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer
of regular bail.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not
inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly
rejected.
8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his
prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87856 of 2025(5) dt.01-04-2026
3/3
within the said period.
9. Further, the learned trial Court is hereby directed to
make all possible endeavors to expedite the trial and conclude
the same at the earliest.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-
U T
Checking your session…