Niraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51266 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2020 Thana- HARINMAR District- Munger ====================================================== Niraj Kumar son of Sadanand Paswan Resident of Mohalla-Purvari Tola, Ward No.5, P.S. -Maheshkhunt, Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 28.02.2025 and the informant alleges that on 06.08.2020, at about 06.30 p.m., her son Mantu Singh (deceased) had gone out of his house talking on mobile with Naresh Paswan and Dinesh Kumar Singh, but the victim did not return, thereafter, on the next day, a hectic search was made, but the victim could not be located. It is next alleged that at about 3 O'clock, the informant came to know that the dead body of her son lay concealed on the land of Dinesh Kumar Singh under the soil, accordingly, she came to the place of occurrence and saw a sharp cutting deep injury on the left side of his head.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51266 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 is not named in the FIR and his name transpired during the course of investigation that he was in contact with Amarjeet who in turn was in connect with Naresh and the persons, who were involved in the occurrence i.e. Amarjeet and Naresh, were found to be connected with the deceased.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that though petitioner is not named in the FIR but during the course of investigation his name transpired based on investigation of his CDR detail as has been recorded in the order impugned. It is further submitted that petitioner was in contact with Amarjeet and Naresh whose involvement transpired in the occurrence and Amarjeet and Naresh were also connected with the deceased on phone.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Harinmar P.S. Case No. 18A of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T