Manoranjan Singh @ Pintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19407 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2024 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Manoranjan Singh @ Pintu Singh S/o- Arun Singh Village- Ranipur PsPaliganj Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Kahkashan Alam, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Bauye Jee Jha, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and Learned Counsel for the Informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.Tr. No.1330 of 2024 Paliganj P.S. Case No.09 of 2024 lodged under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the IPC read with Section 3⁄4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide order dated 18.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.69891 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2024 having one antecedent. He further submits that wife of the petitioner has become traceless and petitioner was searching his wife and in this regard, both informant and petitioner's side were jointly searching, but subsequently informant's side has filed false criminal case against him. He further submits that 4 witnesses

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19407 of 2025(2) dt.20-06-2025 2/2 have been examined and they all become hostile.

5. Learned Counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner may be released on bail, but only after conclusion of trial as only a few witnesses ( i.e., only I.O.) has been left for final examination.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

7. Upon specific query by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's wife was missing then any information has been made by him anywhere. In this regard, he submits that it is a mistake taken place from his side.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. It is very unfortunate that in the month of January, 2025, his bail application has been rejected and he has moved before this Court for bail again after a few months. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T