Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Patel @ Santosh Shukla @ Karanti Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12258 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-469 Year-2025 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Patel @ Santosh Shukla @ Karanti Kumar Son of Rajeshwar Patel @ Rajeshwar Rai @ Rajeshwar Prasad Gupta Resident of Village - Baijalpur, P.S. - Paroo, Dist. - Muzaffarpur. At present R/o Village - Dubiyahi(Pokhraira), P.S. - Jainpur, Dist. - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the F.I.R. named accused persons have committed murder of the nephew of the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of this petitioner has surfaced in this case during

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12258 of 2026(4) dt.18-04-2026 2/3 investigation in the confessional statement of Kartik Kumar. The confessional statement of Kartik Kumar reveals that the petitioner and he have murdered the deceased Abhimanu on behest of their friend Aman Kumar. It has also come that the fire was made by Aman Kumar. It has further been submitted that the C.D.R. location also goes to show that the tower location of petitioner was near the place of occurrence. Save and except the confessional statement, there is nothing against him. It has further been submitted that one another case was filed for recovery of the weapon as Paroo P.S. Case No. 514 of 2025. It is alleged that the weapon of murder was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the prosecution is that F.I.R. named accused persons have killed the deceased whereas during investigation, entirely different story has cropped up on the basis of confessional statement. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 20.11.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the application for bail and have submitted that petitioner is having criminal antecedent of three cases. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the petitioner has also given his

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12258 of 2026(4) dt.18-04-2026 3/3 confessional statement and has accepted his involvement and that the weapon of assault was also recovered from him.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (West) Muzaffarpur in connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 469 of 2025.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T