Dismissed¶20

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Mandal @ Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Apr 2025CR. MISC./4495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court bail refusal, Cr. Misc. No.4495 of 2025, decided 24-04-2025, Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra. Regular bail denied to Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Mandal @ Amit Kumar in Sessions Trial No. 851 of 2024 (Tatarpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024, District Bhagalpur) for murder under Section 103(1) BNS 2023 with Section 61 BNS and Arms Act Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 (cognizance u/s 103(1)/61/3(5) BNS; 25(1-B)a/26/27/35 Arms Act). Grounds: nature and gravity of offence and trial already in progress (two witnesses examined); court below directed to expedite trial. Petitioner in judicial custody since 17.08.2024; arrest reportedly on Call Detail Report basis.

What did the court decide?

None - bail prayer rejected; trial directed to be expedited and concluded expeditiously by the court below. ¶20

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Mandal @ Amit Kumar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - bail prayer rejected; trial directed to be expedited and concluded expeditiously by the court below.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with Sessions Trial No. 851 of 2024 (Tatarpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024) instituted for offences under Section 103(1) BNS 2023, Section 61 BNS and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

¶10

Court's answer

Having heard all parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the fact that the trial is already in progress, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for bail was rejected, with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude it expeditiously.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected - Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.4495 of 2025 (order dated 24-04-2025, Rudra Prakash Mishra, J). Petitioner sought bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 851 of 2024 arising out of Tatarpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024 (District Bhagalpur), instituted for murder under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with Section 61 of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act later added; at cognizance stage sections invoked were u/s 103(1)/61/3(5) B.N.S. and Section 25(1-B)a/26/27/35 Arms Act, and the record was committed to the Sessions Court. Counsel argued petitioner was unnamed in the F.I.R., arrested on the basis of the Call Detail Report, in judicial custody since 17.08.2024, with only a pre-police confessional statement against him; State and Informant pointed to witnesses supporting prosecution and the Para-89 case-diary confession; trial in progress with two witnesses examined. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and that the trial was already in progress, the Court declined bail at this stage and directed the trial court to expedite and conclude the trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4495 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2024 Thana- TATARPUR District- Bhagalpur

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Mandal @ Amit Kumar S/o Motilal Mandal R/o Village- Lal Kothi, P.S.- Tatarpur, District- Bhagalpur

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Samir Kumar, Adv. ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER

¶8

3 24-04-2025

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the case diary.

¶10

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 851 of 2024 arising out of Tatarpur P.S. Case No. 125 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and later on added Section 61 of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

¶11

As per prosecution case, the accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of committing murder of the Informant’s son namely Raunak Kedia.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged

¶13

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4495 of 2025(3) dt.24-04-2025 2/3

¶14

against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion as also police mechanism. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has transpired in course of investigation on the basis of the disclosures made by the spy. The petitioner was arrested on the basis of the Call Detail Report and his statement was recorded before the police in which he confessed his guilt of participating in the alleged occurrence. Except confessional statement, there is nothing adverse against the petitioner in the entire record of this case. The confessional statement of the petitioner recorded before the police has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no specific or direct allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature rather the specific allegation of killing the deceased is on Dilkhush. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 17.08.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged is serious in nature. The Informant in re-statement contained in Para-14 has witnesses at Para 15, 16, 17, 18 have supported the prosecution

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4495 of 2025(3) dt.24-04-2025 3/3

¶17

case. Para-89 of the case diary contains the confessional statement of the petitioner in which he has confessed his guilt of being involved in the alleged occurrence. The postmortem report also supports the prosecution case. He further submits that after submission of charge-sheet, the learned court below has taken cognizance u/s 103(1)/61/3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 25(1-B)a/26/27/35 of the Arms Act and the record has been committed to the learned Sessions Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Informant submits that the trial is in progress and, up till now, two witnesses have been examined.

¶19

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the nature and gravity of the offence coupled with the fact that the trial is already in progress, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶20

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.

¶21

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶22

rishi/-

¶23

U T

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Mandal @ Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Singh @ Amit Mandal @ Amit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhatish Kumar @ Satish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rishav Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Kumar @ Bambam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Singh @ Krishna Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Niraj Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rewat Prasad Yadav @ Rewat Yadav Vs The State of Bihar