Subodh Kumar @ Nepali Singh @ Nepo Singh @ Thapa v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55483 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2024 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Subodh Kumar @ Nepali Singh @ Nepo Singh @ Thapa S/o Late Hari Prasad Singh R/o Village- Barauni 01, P.S- Teghra, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 20 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 22.01.2024 by the informant, Sunita Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that when her husband reached near a house of one Amar Singh, Anmol Kumar and five unknown accused not only opened fire but also they brutally assaulted causing his immediate death on the spot. This led to the FIR.
4. Subsequently, Anmol Kumar was picked up and he spilled the beans, the name of the petitioner cropped up and he is in custody.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55483 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that his name has come on the confession of Anmol Kumar, learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that a perusal of the FIR would show that how brutally the husband of the informant was killed. Anmol Kumar has been named in the FIR who after arrest, gave the name of this petitioner.
6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the petitioner is accused in number of criminal cases under IPC as also Explosive Act, in that background, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.
7. The bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T