Mintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38217 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2015 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Mintu Singh son of Vidyanand Singh, Vidhanand Singh, R/o. VillageTilaktajpur, P.S. Runnisaidpur, Distt- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS, 2023') for grant of regular bail to the petitioner who is in custody in connection with Minapur P.S. Case No. 11 of 2015, lodged on 12.01.2015, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur.

3. As per the prosecution, informant has received information that four persons had come on motorcycle and fired at his son Manoj Kumar Singh and one Mukund Kumar Mishra and fled away after committing the murder.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38217 of 2026(3) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the name of petitioner has come in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused persons before police, which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law and those two accused persons have already been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.247 of 2016/605 of 2015 by giving them benefit of doubt. He submits that petitioner was not aware about his implication in the instant case and he was arrested by the police on 20.01.2026 and he is in judicial custody since 21.01.2026. Counsel further submits that petitioner is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that on the previous occasion case-diary was called for. From perusal of the case-diary, it transpires that the petitioner is an absconder in this case and recently arrested on 20.01.2026.

6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby refused.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./Anshuman/ U T