Chandan Kumar @ Action @ Action Kumar @ Ankit Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91044 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2025 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Chandan Kumar @ Action @ Action Kumar @ Ankit Raj S/o Tuntun Prasad @ Rishabdeo @ Rishabdeo Prasad @ Rishabhdeo Resident of VillageHulaschak, P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv Mr.Rakesh Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 1.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Krishna Prasad Singh and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Masaurhi PS Case No. 298 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of seven cases and is in custody since 18-8-2025. It is next submitted that in sum and substance the allegation is of killing the deceased. 4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired during the investigation in the confessional statement of Deepak

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91044 of 2025(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 @ Bhogi, where he has stated that the plan to eliminate Mukesh @ Chhotan was made in the jail by Nitish, petitioner and others based on which Mukesh @ Chhotan was eliminated and Deepak also fired at him.

5.

At this stage, the learned APP submits that Nitish Kumar had approached this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 58095 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 25-2-2026. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner, if not akin, is similar to the case of Nitish Kumar. 6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the order dated 25-2-2026 in Cr. Misc No. 58095 of 2025, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T