Tinku Koda @ Tinku Kumar Koda Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Saurabh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 01-07-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 137(2), 140(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the bail petition of this petitioner was rejected with an observation that “ he may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded”.

¶16

A report from the learned trial court was called and from perusal of the report it transpires that out of 12 chargesheet witnesses only one witness has been examined.

¶17

Now coming to the merit of this case, the case of the prosecution in short is that the son of the informant namely,

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24605 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026 2/3

¶19

Santosh Kumar has solemnized love marriage with Rekha Kumari against the will of the family. It is further alleged that the son of the informant did not return. When he was being searched, the informant went to the house of Tinku Koda (the petitioner), then the two wives of the petitioner told that Santosh Kumar was taken towards jungle after being assaulted. The informant believes that the petitioner along with family members has concealed the body of Santosh Kumar after killing him.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only material against the petitioner is that he has given his confessional statement which is there in the Paragraph ‘37’ of the case diary and on his disclosure the dead body was recovered as per the claim of police. The petitioner is a man of clean antecedent and is in judicial custody since 14.01.2025.

¶21

Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail and has submitted that the dead body has been recovered on his disclosure though confessional statement before police is not admissible but disclosure leading to recovery is admissible and relevant in view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24605 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026 3/3

¶24

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded.

¶25

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial, so as to conclude the same within the said period.

¶26

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶27

durgesh/-

¶28

U T

Tinku Koda @ Tinku Kumar Koda v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Koda @ Tinku Kumar Koda v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Kumar @ Andwa Vs The state of Bihar

Ranveer Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Shah Ayub @ Aiyub Sah @ Aiyyub @ Shah Aiyub Vs The State of Bihar

Bipul Kumar @ Vipul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Govind Ray @ Govind Kumar Ray @ Govind Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Paswan @ Takal Vs The State of Bihar