Patna High Court – Orders
Nishant Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 4 August, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33358 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2024 Thana- NARAINPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Nishant Kumar S/O Late Akhilesh Singh R/O Village- Koran Dihri, P.S-
Sahar, Distt.- Bhojpur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 04-08-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 83 of 2024 registered for the offenses
punishable under Section 103(1), 238 & 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per allegation, on 12.10.2024, the informant’s
son, namely Raushan Kumar, had gone along with his friend,
Rajnish Kumar, on a Honda motorcycle on the invitation of one
Prakash Rai. Thereafter, he did not return home. On the
following morning, when the informant tried to contact his son
over his mobile phone, the same was found switched off/not
responding. Subsequently, the informant came to know that a
quarrel had taken place between his son along with Rajnish
Kumar and Prakash Rai along with his associates. Thereafter, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33358 of 2026(4) dt.04-08-2026
2/5
24.10.2024, the dead bodies of Raushan Kumar and Rajnish
Kumar were recovered from the water canal in Village
Chauriya.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. He submits that it is evident from the F.I.R that there is no
specific allegation against the petitioner and merely on the basis
of suspicion, his name has been dragged in this case. He submits
that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence which
suggest the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged
occurrence. In fact, it is the co-accused Prakash Rai who has
called the deceased at his house and this petitioner has no
concern at all in any manner. He further submits that the co-
accused Prakash Rai, who is named in the FIR, has already been
granted bail vide order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned
1st ASJ-cum-Special Judge Children’s Court, Bhojput at Ara in
B.P.No. 4192 of 2025 (Special Children Case No. 28 of 2025)
and the case of this petitioner stands on similar footing. He also
submits that similarly situated co-accused Bahadur @ Vikash
Roy has been granted anticipatory bail by the court below vide
ABP No. 2460 on dated 24.09.2025 and co-accused Sushil
Kumar, Chand Kumar @ Anshuman Kumar @ Lily have also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33358 of 2026(4) dt.04-08-2026
3/5
been granted bail by the court below itself. He lastly submits
that though the petitioner has been made accused in one another
case but he is on bail in that case. The petitioner is in custody
since 04.02.2026 and, therefore, he deserves to be released on
bail.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner is a named in the FIR along with the
co-accused Prakash Rai. He further submits that the petitioner
along with the co-accused were last seen in the company of the
deceased and this fact has also been supported by the
independent witness during course of investigation. It has also
been collected during the investigation that the petitioner along
with co-accused in a per-planned manner called the deceased
and accordingly he was last seen with the deceased, thereafter,
dead body of the deceased was found. It has further been
submitted that the co-accused Prakash Rai has been granted bail
by the Presiding Officer, Children’s Court, Bhojpur at Ara, on
the ground that he happened to be a Juvenile at the time of
occurrence and the case of the petitioner is not identical to the
co-accused Prakash Rai. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner is a major and the same benefit which was given to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33358 of 2026(4) dt.04-08-2026
4/5
the Prakash Rai cannot be extended to him. It has further been
submitted that during course of investigation, the witnesses have
also supported the prosecution version which would be evident
from paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 152, 156, 157,164 and 179 of the case
diary. Relying upon postmortem report of the deceased Raushan
Kumar, learned APP for the State submits that the doctor who
conducted the postmortem, has found blood stained over and
near the nose and mouth of the deceased which itself suffice to
establish that the deceased has been subjected to assault before
his death. The doctor in his report has opined that the cause of
death of the deceased was due to asphyxia which leads to C.R.
failure and death. As regards submission of the petitioner that
some of the co-accused persons have been granted bail by the
court below itself is concerned, it is submitted that they have not
been named in the FIR, therefore, the case of this petitioner is
entirely different from them. It has lastly been submitted that
apart from the present case, the petitioner has been made
accused in one another case i.e. Sahar P.S. Cae No 99 of 2023
(SC/ST Case No. 34 of 2023) under Sections 341, 323, 307,
20(B) & 345 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act &
Sections 3(1)(r)(s)/ 3(1)(v) of the SC & ST Act and, therefore,
he does not deserve to the enlarged on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33358 of 2026(4) dt.04-08-2026
5/5
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and also the fact that the petitioner along with the co-accused
called the deceased and he was last seen with the deceased
before the incident and that too has been supported by the other
witnesses as well as the fact that postmortem reveals that the
deceased sustained external injury and cause of death has been
opined to be asphyxia lead to C.R. failure along with the fact of
period of custody, which is even less than six months, this court
is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Girijish Kumar, J)
aman/-
U T
