Kamalu Kewat @ Kamleshwar Kumar Kewat @ Kamlu Kumar @ Kamleshwar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11491 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- DANDKHORA District- Katihar ====================================================== Kamalu Kewat @ Kamleshwar Kumar Kewat @ Kamleshwar Kumar @ Kamlu Kumar Son of Late Bhikhati Kewat Resident of Vilage - Sauriya, P.S. - Dandkhora, Dist. - Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Asha Devi, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 31.12.2025 in connection with Dandkhora P.S. Case No.123 of 2025, FIR dated 30.10.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant who happens to be the father of the deceased, namely, Babloo Parihar alleged that on 29.10.2025 his son Babloo Parihar was sitting at his Puja Shop, in the meantime, at about 05:00 P.M. daughterin-law (co-accused) came there and started quarreling on some issue with her husband Babloo Parihar, deceased son of the informant and in course of such quarrel the co-accused, namely,
2/4 Lalita Devi hit on the back side of his head by means of bamboo stick as a result of which Babloo Parihar, the son of the informant, fell down on the ground. Upon raising alarm by him, several people assembled there, thereafter the son of the informant was sent to Sadar Hospital, Katihar in an injured condition and he was declared dead on arrival.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. Initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Lalita Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the coaccused stated that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in question but from a bare perusal of the confessional statement of the co-accused namely, Lalita Devi, it appears that the allegation against the petitioner is that he and other coaccused person, namely, Munna have caught hold the deceased and co-accused, namely, Lalita Devi has assaulted to the deceased with Bamboo. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific allegation of assault is attributed against co-accused, namely, Lalita Devi and who has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide
3/4 order dated 02.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2868 of 2026 and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 31.12.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact, petitioner has clean antecedent, petitioner is not named in the FIR, there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioner name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional statement of coaccused namely, Lalita Devi and co-accused, namely, Lalita Devi has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, 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 learned S.D.J.M., Katihar in connection with Dandkhora P.S. Case No.123 of 2025, with 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
4/4 (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) Nitesh/- U T