Dismissed¶20

Sukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Jan 2026CR. MISC./49279/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar; Patna High Court; CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49279 of 2025; order dt. 07-01-2026; Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey; regular bail rejected/dismissed; Section 364/34 IPC (kidnapping/abduction with common intention); Chautham P.S. Case No.110/2024; District Khagaria; victim traceless; second marriage with co-accused Reena Devi; FIR lodged after 17 days; investigation continuing; skeleton recovered; DNA profiling report pending.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail rejected: considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the allegation against the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail. ¶20

Sukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49279 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria

¶3

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

¶4

Sukesh Kumar S/O Baudhu Singh R/O Village- Kaithi, P.S- Chautham, Distt.Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Viveka Nandsingh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

6 07-01-2026

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This is an application for regular bail on behalf of

¶14

the petitioner for the offences alleged under Section 364/34 of the of the IPC, registered in connection with Chautham P.S.Case No. 110/2024.

¶15

The FIR itself shows that the petitioner after solemnization of his first marriage with the victim, has solemnized his second marriage with the co-accused Reena Devi. The victim is still traceless.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion. It is submitted further that the present case was lodged after 17 days of the occurrence.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49279 of 2025(6) dt.07-01-2026 2/2

¶18

On the other hand, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyaya, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that the investigation is still continuing.

¶19

The I.O. was directed by the coordinate Bench to take every effort for recovery of the victim girl. The Superintendent of Police, Khagaria was also directed to assist this Court. The Superintendent of Police, Khagaria informed the coordinate Bench through video conferencing that efforts are being made to ascertain the victim’s location and one skeleton was recovered and the DNA profiling report is in progress.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

¶21

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

¶22

HR/-

¶23

U T

Sukesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukesh 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

Vimlesh Kumar @ Veer Kumar Mahto @ Beer Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Bhokta Vs The State of Bihar

Vikram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Kaushal Kishore Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar