Amresh Kumar @ Amresh Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20093 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2021 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Amresh Kumar @ Amresh Kumar Ray Son of Late Jagdev Ray @ Jagdish Ray Resident of Village - Bambaiya Milki, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rana Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2025
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the prayer portion during the course of the day.
3. This application, for grant of regular bail, arises out of Muffasil Police Station Case No. 214 of 2021, dated 13.05.2021, disclosing offences under Sections 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, on 13.05.2021, at about 10:00 P.M., informant's son was strolling after taking meal. In the meanwhile, some unknown persons called him and took him towards the power house and killed him by firearm. It has further been alleged that the mobile number of the informant's son was found switch off. Informant got the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20093 of 2025(4) dt.25-07-2025 2/3 information by one Tarun Kumar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR is against unknown and the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. During the course of investigation, informant has filed an application before learned A.C.J.M.-II, Samastipur, stating that the petitioner is innocent and is not involved in the offence. She further submits that during investigation, the statement of the employees working in the power house has been recorded in paragraph 9 and 10, but no material has been found to connect the petitioner with the present offence.
6. No one appears for the State.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the materials available on record including the case diary. The statement of the employees working on the fateful day at the sub-station has been recorded in paragraph 9 and 10 of the case diary. Both the employees have stated that the petitioner, on the day of occurrence, in the night at about 11:30 P.M. to 12:00 A.M., arrived with some unknown persons, entered the premises after crossing the gate, threatened with firearms and subsequently they heard the sound of firing. The blood stains were found in front of the gate of the sub-station.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20093 of 2025(4) dt.25-07-2025 3/3 After some distance, the dead-body of Ritesh Kumar was found lying. In paragraph 18 of the case diary, the police, in its supervision, has found the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. Petitioner is having eight criminal cases of serious offences.
8. Regards being had to the submissions made by the petitioner, considering the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and the criminal background of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
9. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T