Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34573/2025dismissed

Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Ram v. State Of Bihar

2026-01-12Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34573 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2023 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh ram S/o Ra Ashish Ram R/o Vill- Devadhiya, P.S.- Rajpur, Distt- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 208 of 2023 initially registered for the offence punishable under Sections-307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act but later on, Section-302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added.

3. The fardbeyan of the deceased was recorded in injured condition. He named the co-accused Gurucharan Choudhary with allegation that he fired first which hit his right hand and when he fell down from his motorcycle, the second shot was fired at him. The deceased, during course of treatment died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34573 of 2025(4) dt.12-01-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has surfaced in this case in confessional statement of co-accused, Gurucharan Chaudhary. The petitioner is not the assailant. The petitioner is in custody since 07-09-2024.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that during investigation, the confessional statement of the co-accused was recorded, according to which, it was the petitioner who fired the second shot. The petitioner has a criminal antecedent of murder case.

6. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T