Dippu Kumar @ Dippu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

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 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