Prashant Kumar @ Prashant Kumar @ Dhuntun Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25351 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-327 Year-2025 Thana- Kavaiya District- Lakhisarai

======================================================

Prashant Kumar @ Prashant Kumar @ Dhuntun S/o Pramod Thakur @ Pramod Sharma R/o vill - Kiul Basti, Panchana Road, ward no. 22, P.sKabaiya, Distt.- Lakhisarai

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 10-07-2026

¶12

Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, learned APP for the State.

¶13

Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 08.09.2025, in connection with Kabaiya P.S. Case No. 327 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 27.08.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 140(3) of the B.N.S., 2023 and later on Sections 103(1)/238 of the B.N.S. was added.

¶14

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the son of the informant namely Sikander Kumar has not returned home since 25.08.2025. It is next alleged that when they tried to reach his mobile number i.e. 7632843079, is also switched off as such the informant is frightened that some mishap has taken place with

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25351 of 2026(3) dt.10-07-2026 2/4

¶16

his son.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Initially, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Satish Kumar and except the aforesaid, nothing cogent material has come during investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and as per confessional statement of coaccused persons they have stated that co-accused persons namely Satish Kumar and Mohit Kumar tied the neck of the deceased by towel and after that they have disposed of the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that said co-accused persons, namely, Satish Kumar and Anup Kumar have been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2773 of 2026 and its analogous case, another co-accused person, namely, Rahul Kumar @ Golu has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10069 of 2026 respectively. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25351 of 2026(3) dt.10-07-2026 3/4

¶19

chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 08.09.2025.

¶20

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

¶21

State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner .

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person and the said co-accused person has been granted bail by a Coordinate Benche of this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in connection with Kabaiya P.S. Case No. 327 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-

¶23

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25351 of 2026(3) dt.10-07-2026 4/4

¶25

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶26

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶27

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶28

Ibrar//-

¶29

U T

Prashant Kumar @ Prashant Kumar @ Dhuntun v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar @ Prashant Kumar @ Dhuntun 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

Nikhil Kumar @ Jagmohan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Mithu Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Nijam @ Nijam Vs The State of Bihar

Saurav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Subhash Singh @ Raj Kishor Singh @ Ram Kishor Singh @ Subash Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar