Surya Prakash v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74806 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2020 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda ====================================================== Surya Prakash S/o Bablu Kumar @ Padri Singh R/o Village- Pandark, Surajpur Tola, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajive Ranjan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Harnaut PS Case No. 10 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and is in custody since 19-8-2025. It is next submitted that the informant alleges that on 10-1-2020 at about 1:15 pm, while he was near the cement godown, when two accused on a motorcycle came and indiscriminately fired killing his son Gautam. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74806 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026 2/3 during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of Dheeraj, who disclosed that this petitioner was also involved in killing the deceased by resorting to firing. It is next submitted that confessional statement of an accused in police custody does not have any evidentiary value. It is further submitted that Dheeraj has already been granted the privilege of regular bail by this Court. It is thus submitted that the person in whose confession the name of the petitioner transpired has been granted the privilege of regular bail as such petitioner be also extended the same benefit.

5.

Learned A.P.P., Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that son of the informant died and the informant has not named the petitioner in the FIR, which amply demonstrates that informant had no intention of implicating the petitioner, but then his name transpired in the confessional statement of coaccused during the course of investigation. It is also submitted that petitioner has antecedent of four serious cases and in the event if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74806 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026 3/3 the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 7.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

8.

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T