Aniket Singh @ Kumar Aniket Pratap @ Bittu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18038 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2022 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Aniket Singh @ Kumar Aniket Pratap @ Bittu Son of Late Krishna Singh Resident of Village- Prashurampur (Zabdi), P.S.- Pirpainti, DistrictBhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate Ms. Kajal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary For the Informant :

Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 375 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the co-accused persons named in the FIR, entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed the murder of the brother of the informant, Nishant Singh, and nephew, Harshdeo Singh, by opening fire. The reason for the occurrence is stated to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18038 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026 2/3 be the non-repayment of the borrowed amount.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2023 and has one criminal antecedent. It is also contended that although the petitioner has remained in custody since 2023, the prosecution is delaying the trial, and the charge has recently been framed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the bail application and submit that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. It is contended that there exists prima facie material on record indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence.

6. Learned counsel for the informant undertakes to produce the witnesses on the dates fixed by the trial court.

7. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In the present case, two persons have been killed by indiscriminate firing. The petitioner is one of the accused in the case and is alleged to have fired upon the deceased. Although it is argued that there is previous enmity between the parties, considering the fact that it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18038 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026 3/3 is a case of double murder by indiscriminate firing, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

9. However, if the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

10. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T