Brajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22419 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-567 Year-2025 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Brajesh Kumar S/O Pradip Mandal Resident of Village- Ghailadh, Ward No. 01, P.S- Ghailadh, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case no. 567 of 2025 registered under sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his younger brother was fired upon by two unknown accused persons on a motorcycle as a result of which he sustained four gun shot injuries and fell down injured. The accused escaped.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation on a concocted story that he had given effect to the occurrence by hiring professional killers because he was having a love affair with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22419 of 2026(4) dt.15-07-2026 2/2 the wife of the injured. It is submitted that the allegations levelled of the petitioner having any affair and having given effect to the occurrence is all false and concocted and categorically denied. The FIR was registered after a delay of three days. The petitioner is in custody since 7.12.2025 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that the allegation of the petitioner having hired professional killers to give effect to the occurrence has been supported by the material that has transpired in course of investigation.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR and the material that has transpired against the petitioner in course of investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail on completing one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T