Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38514/2025dismissed

Vimlesh Kumar @ Veer Kumar Mahto @ Beer Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-06Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38514 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2023 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Vimlesh Kumar @ Veer Kumar Mahto @ Beer Kumar S/o Ramtahal Mahto R/o Village- Rabaich, P.O. and P.S.- Bhaktiarpur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr.Bhaskar Shankar For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Section 302/34 of the IPC, registered in connection with Raghopur P.S.Case No. 282 of 2023.

3. As per allegation, the husband of the informant went out on call of the petitioner. Subsequently, his dead-body was recovered from a tempo parked outside his house.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The brother of the deceased is a witness of inquest. He in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC has stated that co-accused Vijay Rai had called the deceased, whereas the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38514 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026 2/2 wife of the deceased Usha Devi has stated in her fardbayan that the petitioner had called the deceased. Learned senior counsel has submitted further that the investigating authority did not try to receive the CDR of mobile set of the deceased.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has submitted that the brother of the deceased has been examined as P.W.1 and during trial he stated that it was the petitioner who called the deceased. The wife of the deceased has also stated that it was the petitioner who called the deceased.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T