Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36713 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2026 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-

Samastipur

====================================================== Nitish Kumar Son of Laila Paswan @ Lalu paswan Resident of village -Bhusari, Ward No 17, PS -Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP For the Informant : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate Mr. Rang Nath Pandey, Advocate ======================================================

¶6

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

¶7

ORAL ORDER

¶8

2 15-06-2026

¶9

Heard Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, learned counsel

¶10

for the petitioner, Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶11

Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 15.03.2026 in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 125 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 13.03.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.

¶12

According to prosecution case, 15 named accused persons took away husband of the informant and allegedly killed him.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Initially the petitioner was not

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36713 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026 2/3

¶15

named in the FIR and his name has been transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Vikesh Paswan @ Malinga. He further submits that from perusal of paragraph no. 28 of the case diary it appears that the co-accused Vikesh Paswan @ Malinga has accepted that he has committed the present crime in question. Apart from that for the same set of allegation, co-accused Arjun Paswan @ Arjun Kumar has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34280 of 2026. He further submits that the co-accused Vikesh Paswan @ Malinga has not said anything about the petitioner that he was involved in the present crime in question. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2026.

¶16

The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in question by disposing of the dead body of the deceased.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36713 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026 3/3

¶19

bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-II, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No. 125 of 2026, subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

i. 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.

¶21

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶22

iii. 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 antecedent, 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.

¶23

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

Nitish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitish Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akchhay Manjhi @ Akchhay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nirdosh Kumar @ Nirdosh Yadav @ Nirdosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Vivek Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Uttam Chaudhary @ Uttam Kumar Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Sumit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Gulshad Alam Vs The State of Bihar