Dismissed¶23

Abhinav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC25 Jun 2026CR. MISC./40827/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail — second application rejected (Cr. Misc. No. 40827 of 2026, Patna HC, 25-06-2026, Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.); sole ground of police closure report (charge-sheet No. 153/2022, dt. 22.07.2022) failed as it pre-dated rejection of first bail prayer (Cr. Misc. No. 77592/2023, dt. 21.06.2024); Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022, Begusarai; S. 302/34 IPC; S. 27 Arms Act; murder allegation, petitioner seen fleeing spot with co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Since the closure report against the petitioner was already available with him at the time of rejection of his first anticipatory bail, there is no occasion to reconsider the anticipatory bail prayer on the second occasion. ¶23

Abhinav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40827 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2022 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR DistrictBegusarai

¶3

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

¶4

Abhinav Kumar Son of Ajay Kunwar @ Ajay Shankar Kunwar @ Ajay Shankar Sharma R/o Village - Binodpur, P.S. - Singhaul, Dist. - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amaresh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 25-06-2026

¶11

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶12

learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

This is the second anticipatory bail petition preferred by the petitioner after rejection of his first prayer of anticipatory bail through Cr. Misc. No. 77592 of 2023 dated 21.06.2024 in connection with Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 03 of 2022 registered for the offence under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶14

The present second prayer of anticipatory bail was preferred on the sole ground that the petitioner was not sent up for trial, as police submitted closure report against the petitioner vide charge-sheet No. 153/2022 dated 22.07.2022, but the same was not taken care of by the learned coordinate Bench while passing the order in Cr. Misc. No. 77592/2023.

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40827 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026 2/3

¶16

The allegation against petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons have committed the murder of father of the informant, where petitioner was seen at the place of occurrence during his escape alongwith other co-accused persons.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of occurrence in the house of informant, her maternal uncle was also present. It is submitted that only one accused was noticed by the informant (daughter of the deceased), who was Lalan Singh, but as her maternal uncle was in another room of the house, he identified rest of the two persons, who were not identified by the informant. This petitioner was one of them who is none but the co-villager of the maternal uncle of the informant with whom land dispute is pending, leading to his false implication with the present crime in question.

¶18

It is submitted that considering all aforesaid aspects and CDR, police submitted closure report against the petitioner.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that charge-sheet was submitted on 22.07.2022, whereas prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 77592/2023 and, therefore,

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40827 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026 3/3

¶21

petitioner had all occasion to raise these arguments before this Court at relevant point of time.

¶22

It is submitted by Learned A.P.P. that now this argument should not be accepted for the reason that same was available with the petitioner at the time of hearing of his earlier prayer of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that the occurrence is heinous in nature, where petitioner was identified by one of the witness fleeing away immediately after the occurrence alongwith other co-accused persons and as such there is no occasion to reconsider the present second prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

¶23

In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of the fact as the closure report, as submitted aforesaid, was already available with the petitioner at the time of rejection of his first anticipatory bail, therefore, there is no occasion to reconsider the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner on second occasion, accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected on second consideration also.

¶24

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

¶25

Rajeev/-

Abhinav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Kumar Panday @ Vikash Kumar Dubey @ Vikash Panday Vs The State of Bihar

Mamina Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar

Dashrath Singh Bhokta Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Mumtaj @ Md. Mumtaz Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Rabindra Rai @ Devendra Rai Vs The State of Bihar