Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6371/2026rejected

Pinkesh Singh @ Pinkesh Kumar @ Pinkesh v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-23Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6371 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2025 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Pinkesh Singh @ Pinkesh Kumar @ Pinkesh Son of Late Bilayti Singh @ Bilayti Singh Resident of Village - Jagatpura, P.S.- Matihani, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amritesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Amritesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Nayan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 04.08.2025 in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No. 117 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 22.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(a) and 3(5) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons killed the son of the informant near Durga Temple and hide his body in the maize field.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6371 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026 2/2 present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R. that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on record as well as case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the co-accused, namely, Hariom Ram in paragraph no. 18 of the case diary has stated that the petitioner has fired upon the victim due to which he died at the place of occurrence and the same has been confirmed by the medical evidence (postmortem report).

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Matihani P.S. Case No. 117 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Begusarai.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T