Dismissed¶23

Anish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Bail – Regular bail rejected

Patna HC22 Jan 2026CR. MISC./48892/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, 22-01-2026, Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J — Crl. Misc. No. 48892 of 2025 arising out of Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 398 of 2024, Section 302/34 IPC — Regular bail of husband accused of wife's shooting death rejected — Prosecution relied on confessional statement, recovery of pistol on disclosure, fire-arm injury in postmortem, and allegation of suicide note forcibly obtained from deceased before murder — Defence plea of suicide based on suicide note recovered at petitioner's disclosure; co-accused (father-in-law and Lalan, pistol supplier) already bailed — Bail prayer dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail; the prayer for bail is rejected. ¶23

Anish 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.48892 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2024 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

Anish Kumar S/O Naresh Sah @ Naresh Kumar Sah R/O Village- Khokhsa, PS- Dalsingsarai, District- Samastipur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Patna

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Sr. Adv. Mr.Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶9

ORAL ORDER

¶10

9 22-01-2026

¶11

In pursuance of the order dated 07-01-2026, the

¶12

investigating officer is present in the court and produced the suicide note of Manisha Kumari in a sealed cover.

¶13

Perused the suicide note and returned the same to the investigating officer.

¶14

The personal appearance of the investigating officer is dispensed with.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶16

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 398 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section-302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48892 of 2025(9) dt.22-01-2026 2/3

¶18

According to allegation, the deceased was married to the petitioner according to Hintu rites and rituals. She was appointed as a teacher in the Primary School, Monika and she was residing with her husband in a rented house in village, Monika. The husband (petitioner) suspected her relation with someone else. Later on, the informant came to know from his elder sister who was residing in Kolkata that the deceased was shot dead.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has been implicated in this case. The father-in-law of the deceased and one Lalan who supplied the pistol, have been granted bail. Learned counsel has also submitted that it is not a case of murder rather it is a case of suicide because the suicide note was recovered at the disclosure of the petitioner.

¶20

On the other hand, Mr. J. N. Thakur, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that in the postmortem, the fire-arm injury was found on the dead body. The petitioner is husband of the deceased who confessed his guilt and on his disclosure, pistol, whereby murder was committed, was recovered. Mr. Thakur has also submitted that the suicide note was forcibly obtained before murder of the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48892 of 2025(9) dt.22-01-2026 3/3

¶22

deceased which transpires from confessional statement of the petitioner. In his confessional statement, the petitioner has stated that he purchased a pistol and cartridges from Lalan and he committed murder of his wife. Before commission of murder, he forcibly got written a suicide note from his wife.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail and accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶24

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶25

A.K.V.//-

¶26

U T

Anish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish 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

Jayotish Thakur @ Jyotish Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar

Praveen Kumar @ Rocky Vs The State of Bihar

Avinash Patel Vs The State of Bihar

Gaurav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pritam Kumar @ Chhota @ Chhotu Vs The State of Bihar

Ranjeet Kumar Sah @ Ranjeet Kumar Sahu Vs The State of Bihar