SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4534

PATNA HIGH COURT
RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, J
Chunchun Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76431 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Bambam Kumar
For the Respondents: Ms. Shaheen Begum

Bail granted based on lack of solid evidence and conditions for ensuring trial cooperation.

Headnote:The petitioner, accused in FIR No. 136 of 2025 for serious offences, sought bail citing absence of direct mention in FIR and a self-confessional statement lacking evidentiary support. The court emphasized no solid evidence against the petitioner, leading to bail acceptance with stringent conditions. "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances... let the petitioner... be released on bail."

Table of Content
1. petitioner is accused of serious offences without being named in fir. (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments concerning evidence and lack of direct implication. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's conditions regarding bail and trial cooperation. (Para 6)

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bambam Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bambam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Shaheen Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

29.04.2025 in connection with Khagaria (Gangour) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 28.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act .

3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons killed his son by gunshot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired during investigation on the basis self-confessional statement of the petitioner and except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. From bare perusal of the self- confessional statement of the petitioner which was recorded in the case diary, it appears that co-accused persons, namely, Vikas Kumar and Rishabh Kumar and the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that confessional statement before the police has no evidentiary value and police after investigation submitted the charge sheet and the petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioner is not named in the FIR and his named transpired on the basis of his confessional statement, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Khagaria in connection with Khagaria (Gangour) P.S. Case No. 136 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top