Manoj Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87719 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== Manoj Singh S/o- Late Chandrashekhar Singh village- Gonawan PS-Nawada District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2025 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that one Rajesh Prasad, who was informant in this case, later on, become accused has stated that while he was going on a bike with his sister-in-law, unknown miscreants killed her.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. During the course of investigation, it has come that the version which has been disclosed by Rajesh is not believable, and he has been made an

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87719 of 2024(3) dt.04-04-2025 2/2 accused. In this case, Rajesh Prasad has given his confessional statement, in which he named this petitioner. This petitioner has also given his confessional statement. In his confessional statement, the petitioner stated that he also fired at deceased and that he concealed the weapon of assault. From perusal of para-32 of the case diary, it transpires that upon his disclosure, the weapon of assault was recovered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 27.07.2024.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submits that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent of two cases, where he is on bail in one of those cases.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T