CR. MISC./25722/2026 of Kailash Kumar Jha @ Uma Shankar Jha Vs The State of Bihar on 19 June 2026

ORAL ORDER

19-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act but subsequently Section 111(2)(a) of B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act were added.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the husband of the informant had gone to the State Information Commission, Patna in connection with a case and in course of returning home from Madhubani station, he was killed. It is further alleged that Pravin Kumar and Satish Kumar had threatened him of dire consequences. It is also alleged that the deceased used to raise voice against corruption and the named accused persons had threatened him of dire consequences.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that name of this petitioner in not there in the F.I.R. His name has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Md. Nazre Alam. It has further been submitted that according to the confessional statement of co-accused Md. Nazre Alam, the bike which was purchased in the name of this petitioner was used in the crime and one Ravi Ranjan was directed to keep an eye on the bike of the deceased from the parking area where the deceased has parked his bike. As soon as the deceased moved with his bike, Ravi Ranjan informed the main assailant Md. Nazre Alam. It has further been stated by Md. Nazre Alam that Chandan Yadav was driving the bike and Nazre Alam was pillion rider who has fired at the deceased.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in this case, Md. Nazre Alam is the main assailant. Only thing which has come during investigation is that the bike which was recovered and used in the crime was in the name of this petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that admittedly, the bike was purchased in the name of this petitioner but save and except that he has purchase the bike from the cash which was taken by his brother, there is nothing against him. He has got no role in the occurrence nor in the conspiracy. It has further been submitted that similarly situated co-accused Ravi Ranjan has already been granted bail by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 14089 of 2026. Petitioner is having no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 25.10.2025.

7. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the application for bail. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted that in para ‘59’ of the case diary, it has come that the petitioner was knowing that his brother Abhilash Jha has taken cash from somebody for killing the deceased and that he has purchased the bike out of that cash.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Madhubani in connection with Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 475 of 2025.

lata/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T