IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55733 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-497 Year-2023 Thana- KOTWALI District- Munger ======================================================

Dipesh Kumar S/o Late Ramchandra Yadav @ Late Ramchandra Prasad @ Late Ramchandra Prasad Yadav R/o Mohalla - Kemkha, P.S - Kotwali, District - Munger ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate Sri Karuna Nath Sahay, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act and subsequently Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections

25(1-b)a, 26(i)(ii) and 35 of the Arms Act were added. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases and is in custody since 04.06.2025. It is further submitted that FIR was against unknown and the petitioner came to be implicated based on the confessional statement of co-accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is next submitted that Rahul Kumar, in whose confession, the name of the petitioner transpired, has been granted the privilege of regular bail by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 20.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 9604 of 2024. It is, thus submitted that if a person, on whose confession, the name of the petitioner transpired, has been granted the privilege of regular bail, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail.

4. At this stage, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 13174 of 2024 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 18.03.2024 with a condition that petitioner will cooperate in the investigation and if charge-sheet is submitted connecting the petitioner with the offence in that event the anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect. Learned A.P.P. further submits that charge-sheet came to be submitted, as such, the petitioner instead of surrendering again moved before this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 66324 of 2024 seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected by an order dated 04.04.2025. It is next submitted that from perusal of the order dated 04.04.2025, it would manifest that in the said case, the Superintendent of Police, Munger was summoned and the Superintendent of Police, Munger before the Court submitted based on investigation that name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused but then during the course of investigation a CCTV footage of the occurrence also transpired and from perusal of the same, it manifested that it was petitioner, who had committed the occurrence of killing the deceased, as such, the petitioner came to be implicated based on the CCTV footage of the occurrence. Learned A.P.P. also submits that accordingly the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by an order dated 04.04.2025. It is further submitted that in the said case, the Superintendent of Police, Munger had assured the Court that SHO-cum-Investigating Officer of the case, who was helping the petitioner, has been suspended and a departmental proceeding against him would be initiated. Learned A.P.P., thus, submits that when name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation based on the CCTV footage where petitioner is seen committing the occurrence and also taking into considerati