Subham Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35509 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-452 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Subham Kumar S/o Manoj Sah Resident of Village - Chiutaha, P.S.- Paroo, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL ORDER 21-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1474/2025, arising out of Chakiya P.S. Case No. 452 of 2025, registered under Sections 140(2), 238, 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, the allegation is that the deceased was taken away by the petitioner on assurance of payment of money as he had taken loan from him. Thereafter, on the cell phone of his daughter-in-law, a call came where this petitioner is alleged to have demanded Rs. 2,00,000/-. This petitioner confessed his guilt by stating that he with co-accused persons committed murder of Niraj Kumar by stabbing him with knife. Others confessionals are also there on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35509 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the charges have been framed and four witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is in custody since 12.08.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the nature of offence and that there is direct involvement of petitioner's in the murder of deceased, this bail application is rejected.

7. If the trial is delay, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.

(Ansul, J) Ranjeet/- U T