IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9856 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2025 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 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 ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. 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. 3. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9856 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026 2/3 killed the deceased and has thrown the body in bushes. The body was recovered on his disclosure. 4. 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. 5. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9856 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026 3/3 conducting autopsy does not seem to be reliable. 6. 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. 7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. shubham/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T