Patna High Court
Ankit Kumar Singh @ Ankit SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order rejecting bail is set aside and bail is granted.
Summary
Ankit Kumar Singh appealed against the denial of bail in a case involving alleged offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, the Arms Act and the SC/ST Act. The appellant claimed an alibi, presenting CCTV footage showing he was in Ludhiana on the date of the alleged crime, and sought to treat the footage as a certificate under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. The State opposed bail, citing eight prior criminal cases against the appellant. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court found the new alibi evidence material and set aside the lower court’s order rejecting bail. The court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, directing the appellant to appear before the Sessions Court.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail in view of the newly produced CCTV alibi evidence.
- Whether the lower court erred in rejecting bail despite the appellant’s claim of non‑presence at the scene.
- Whether the appellant’s criminal antecedents outweigh the evidentiary benefit of the alibi.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 126(2), 3(5), 61(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- bail
- alibi
- CCTV evidence
- Indian Evidence Act
- Arms Act
- SC/ST Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal antecedent
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4875 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-462 Year-2024 Thana- MAHARAJGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
Ankit Kumar Singh @ Ankit Singh S/O Govind Singh @ Yogendra Singh
R/O Village- Sawan Bigrah, P.S- Daraunda, Distt.- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shushil Kumar Paswan S/O Bharat Manjhi R/O Sherpur, P.S- Daraunda,
Dist.- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dewanand Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by learned 1 st Additional
Sessions Court-cum-Special Judge, Siwan whereby the prayer for
bail of the appellant in connection with Maharajganj P.S. Case No.
462 of 2024 under Sections 126(2), 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S.,Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST Act was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that earlier the appeal of this appellant was rejected
by learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
07.08.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1595 of 2025. It has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4875 of 2025(5) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
further been submitted that at that moment, supplementary case
diary was not present. It has further been submitted that from
perusal of the supplementary case diary it will transpire that the
CCTV Footage from one Jaggga Mundi, resident of Ludhiana was
collected by the I.O. and from CCTV Footage, it is clear that on
04.10.2025 he was seen at Ludhiana.
3. The case of the respondent, in short, is that when the
informant's father was going to the market, the informant also
followed him. It is further alleged that the appellant and other co-
accused persons fired on him indiscriminately due to that the
father of the informant died on the spot. It is further alleged that
the appellant in connivance with other co-accused persons has
killed his father under conspiracy.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that though the respondent has posed himself as eye witness, he is
not the eye witness as it is clear from para ‘35’ of the
supplementary case diary that CCTV Footage of Ludhiana goes to
show that the on the date of the occurrence, the appellant was at
Ludhiana. It has further been submitted that during course of
investigation, the Supervising Authority has also found on the
basis of the above CCTV Footage that the appellant was not at the
place of the occurrence on the alleged date of the occurrence. The
owner of the CCTV camera has given the CCTV Footage in a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4875 of 2025(5) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
pendrive. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this
letter may be treated as certificate under Section 65 of the Indian
Evidence Act. It has further been submitted that this part of the
investigation goes to show that the appellant was not present at the
place of the occurrence. The appellant is languishing in judicial
custody since 24.01.2025.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the appeal for bail and has submitted that the appellant is
having criminal antecedent of eight cases.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned order dated 16.09.2025 passed in connection
with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 462 of 2024 is hereby set aside.
7. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 462 of 2024 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Court-cum-Special Judge, Siwan.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
lata/-
U T
Checking your session…