Nand Kumar Singh @ Nandu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19356 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-468 Year-2024 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Nand Kumar Singh @ Nandu Singh Son of Late Ram Badan Singh @ Badan Singh Resident of Village - Pateya, P.S. - Madanpur, District - Aurangabad (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Singh, For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1 For the Informant :
Mr. Uma Kant Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 468/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(1) of the B.N.S.
3. According to allegation, the petitioner called the deceased on phone. The deceased on his call went from the house but didn't return. The informant attempted to contact the deceased on mobile phone but it was not picked up. In the early morning at about 5:00 A.M. the petitioner informed the informant that the dead body of the deceased is lying near Kanchhat bridge situated in Mansarovar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19356 of 2025(4) dt.10-11-2025 2/2
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. On the information of the petitioner, the dead body was recovered.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner called the deceased and on his information the dead body was recovered which shows the complicity of the petitioner. The investigation is still continuing.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner doesn't deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Ranjeet/- U T