Mritunjay Singh @ Mrityunjay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53909 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-369 Year-2024 Thana- EKMA District- Saran ====================================================== Mritunjay Singh @ Mrityunjay Kumar Singh Son of Brajendra Singh @ Bajendra Singh R/O Vill.- Galimapur, P.S.- Ekma, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Renu Kumari, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2025 Heard Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned APP for the State as also Mr. Ram Binod Singh, learned counsel for the informant. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ekma P.S. Case No. 369 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3.

As per prosecution case, father of the informant went missing from his brick-kiln on 12.10.2024. On 14.10.2024, the informant and others allegedly saw the co-accused, Brajendra Singh, his son Mritunjay Singh (petitioner), and unknown persons disposing of the body in an orchard. 4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53909 of 2025(3) dt.15-09-2025 2/3 that the petitioner is in custody since 09-03-2025. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, due to longstanding enmity with the informant, who is not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the FIR is concocted, pointing out that the informant failed to report his father's disappearance promptly, which undermines the credibility of the narrative. The petitioner's counsel highlights that the postmortem report only indicates a skull fracture, contradicting the multiple injuries claimed by the informant. He contends that the allegation of disposing the body in daylight on 14.10.2024 is implausible. 6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that postmortem report corroborates the allegation against the petitioner. Bail of other similarly situated co-accused is rejected by this Court vide order dated 05-05-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2560 of 2025. 7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there being direct allegation against the petitioner,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53909 of 2025(3) dt.15-09-2025 3/3 this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected. 8.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T