Murari Rai @ Krishan Murari Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76005 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2024 Thana- MANER District- Patna ====================================================== Murari Rai @ Krishan Murari Singh S/o Late Chinta Rai Resident of VillageBrahamchari Pokhara, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Suraj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 08-05-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 274 of 2024, lodged on 29.04.2024, under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68443 of 2024.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2024. He submits that affidavit has been directed to be filed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76005 of 2025(6) dt.08-05-2026 2/2 showing that petitioner is not absconding in any other case. He submits that in one case he has filed certificate stating that file is not available, due to which he could not obtain copy but in other cases he submits that from the order sheet it is clear that he is not absconding.

5. Counsel for the informant submits that from the supplementary counter-affidavit and the order attached, it transpires that petitioner has not shown his appearance in those cases in this regard.

6. In response thereof Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was in custody in one case, therefore, his appearance could not be made in any other case. As such, he deserves bail.

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner was involved in commission of murder of the father of the informant with allegation that the father of the informant was witness in another case and to stop him from adducing evidence they have killed the father of the informant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby refused.

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