Patna High Court
Dippu Kumar @ Dippu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the confessional statements and corroborating evidence established sufficient grounds to keep the petitioner in custody.
Summary
Dippu Kumar, accused of murder under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, applied for bail after being in custody since 18 October 2025. The prosecution alleged that he, along with co‑accused, murdered the informant's son and presented statements from co‑accused and a confession by the petitioner himself. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and that no material other than the co‑accused's statements linked him to the crime. The court examined the confessional statements and found them sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the bail petition was refused.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the confessional statements and other evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and lack of FIR mention is sufficient to merit bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confession
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9722 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2025 Thana- PARASBIGHA District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Dippu Kumar @ Dippu Yadav Son of Dinesh Yadav Resident of Village -
Brahmsthan, P.S. - Sakurabad, Dist. - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nityanand Neeraj, Advocate
Ms. Kumari Anjani Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Nityanand Neeraj, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Piyush Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
18.10.2025 in connection with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 269 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 13.10.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along
with other accused persons have murdered the son of the
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9722 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/2
in the FIR and his name has been transpired during investigation
on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused,
namely, Uttam Kumar and except the aforesaid, no other cogent
material has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the statement of
Uttam Kumar has been recorded in which he has stated that the
petitioner was involved in the present crime in question. Apart
from that the co-accused, Pramod Kumar has confessed his guilt
in the present occurrence and also stated that the petitioner has
fired upon the victim. Thereafter, the petitioner himself
confessed his guilt that he has fired upon the victim.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection
with Parasbigha P.S. Case No. 269 of 2025 pending in the court
of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jehanabad.
7. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…