Dismissed¶22

Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Apr 2026CR. MISC./9856/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail REJECTED (with liberty to renew after six months if trial not concluded) - Patna HC CR. MISC. No.9856 of 2026, dt. 17-04-2026, Ashok Kumar Pandey, J; Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025, Aurangabad; offences Ss. 137(2), 3(5) BNS, later Ss. 103(1), 140(1), 238 BNS added; petitioner named via CDR and own confessional statement; tower location near place of occurrence; body recovered on disclosure; postmortem 'asphyxia due to antemortem drowning' opinion disputed as unreliable (decomposed body, no water body); judicial custody since 01.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage; his prayer for bail stands rejected. ¶22

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025 (initially under Sections 137(2), 3(5) of BNS, with Sections 103(1), 140(1) and 238 of BNS later added), should be enlarged on regular bail. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded by then.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.9856 of 2026 (arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025, District Aurangabad); oral order dated 17-04-2026 by Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey. Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Yadav sought regular bail for offences under Sections 137(2), 3(5) of BNS, with Sections 103(1), 140(1) and 238 of BNS added later. Prosecution case: the informant's husband was killed by unknown miscreants; the petitioner's name surfaced during investigation on the basis of CDR and his confessional statement, in which he stated that he along with his associates killed the deceased and threw the body in bushes; his tower location was found near the place of occurrence; the body was recovered on his disclosure. Counsel for the petitioner urged innocence, noting the autopsy opinion of death due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning despite the body not being recovered from water, and that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since 01.10.2025. The APP countered that the body was recovered on the petitioner's disclosure, was not recovered from any water body, was decomposed when the postmortem was conducted, and that the objective findings do not indicate drowning, rendering the autopsy opinion unreliable. The court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and rejected the prayer, while permitting renewal after six months if the trial is not concluded.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9856 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2025 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad

¶3

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

¶4

Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Yadav S/o Nakul Yadav @ Nakul Singh Resident of Village- Chatra, P.S.- Fesar, District- Aurangabad (Bihar)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 17-04-2026

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 137(2), 3(5) of BNS. Later on, Sections 103(1), 140(1) and 238 of BNS were added.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the informant was killed by unknown miscreants. During course of investigation, the name of this petitioner has surfaced in this case on the basis of CDR and confessional statement. The tower location of the petitioner was found near the place of occurrence. During course of investigation, this petitioner has also given his confessional statement and in confessional statement, he has stated that he along with his associates has

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9856 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026 2/3

¶17

killed the deceased and has thrown the body in bushes. The body was recovered on his disclosure.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further submitted that as per the confessional statement of this petitioner, he along with his associates has killed and has thrown the body but from perusal of the postmortem report, it will transpire that the doctor conducting autopsy has opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 01.10.2025.

¶19

Countering this, learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has submitted that the dead body was recovered on the disclosure of this petitioner and as far as the opinion regarding death of the deceased is concerned, the body was not recovered from any water body and from perusal of postmortem, it also appears that the postmortem was conducted of the body when it was in decomposed position and the objective finding of the doctor conducting autopsy does not indicate drowning, however, he has jumped on an opinion that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning. The opinion of the doctor

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9856 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026 3/3

¶21

conducting autopsy does not seem to be reliable.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and cirumstances of this case as stated above, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

¶23

However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

¶24

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶25

shubham/-

¶26

U T

Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Yadav 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

Suraj Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Mohan Lal Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Gulab Vs The state of Bihar

Sanni Kumar @ Sunny Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Biru Ram @ Biru Kumar Vs The State of Bihar