Pintu Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33719 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2026 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Pintu Ram Son of Manoj Ram @ Ramanuj Ram Resident of VillageBajitpur @ Bazidpur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna. 2.
Anita Devi Wife of Pintu Ram Resident of Village- Bajitpur @ Bazidpur, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2.
The petitioners seeks regular bail in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No.42 of 2026 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 and 4 of the Bihar Prevention of Witch (Dain) Practices Act.
3.
As per the prosecution case, the accused persons including the petitioners came to the house of the informant holding different weapons and started assaulting the informant by saying that she had done black magic to the son of the petitioner, who died. When the daughter of the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33719 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 came and tried to pacify them the accused persons also assaulted her as a result of which she sustained injuries and succumbed to the same.
4.
The petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2026.
5.
Considering the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
6.
It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Shalini/PawanU T