Patna High Court
Aniket Singh @ Kumar Aniket Pratap @ BittuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, given the seriousness of the double murder charges and the prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement, regular bail cannot be granted.
Summary
Aniket Singh applied for regular bail in a case where he is accused of a criminal conspiracy that led to the double murder of the informant's brother and nephew, allegedly by indiscriminate firing. The charges include offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner argued innocence, long pre‑trial custody since March 2023, and alleged prosecution delay, while the State and the informant contended that there is prima facie material linking him to the murders. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the existence of prima facie evidence, and the fact that two persons were killed by indiscriminate firing. Concluding that the gravity of the alleged crime outweighs the bail considerations, the court refused to grant regular bail, though it allowed a fresh application if the trial is further delayed.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of double murder and related offences under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the alleged delay in trial and the petitioner’s custody since 2023 justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 302
Subjects
- bail
- double murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- prima facie evidence
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18038 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2022 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Aniket Singh @ Kumar Aniket Pratap @ Bittu Son of Late Krishna Singh
Resident of Village- Prashurampur (Zabdi), P.S.- Pirpainti, District-
Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kajal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary
For the Informant : Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Pirpainti P.S. Case No. 375 of 2022 registered for the offence
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he,
along with the co-accused persons named in the FIR, entered
into a criminal conspiracy and committed the murder of the
brother of the informant, Nishant Singh, and nephew, Harshdeo
Singh, by opening fire. The reason for the occurrence is stated to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18038 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
be the non-repayment of the borrowed amount.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is
further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since
02.03.2023 and has one criminal antecedent. It is also contended
that although the petitioner has remained in custody since 2023,
the prosecution is delaying the trial, and the charge has recently
been framed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as
learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose the bail
application and submit that the allegations against the petitioner
are serious and grave in nature. It is contended that there exists
prima facie material on record indicating the involvement of the
petitioner in the commission of the offence.
6. Learned counsel for the informant undertakes to
produce the witnesses on the dates fixed by the trial court.
7. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
have gone through the records of the case. In the present case,
two persons have been killed by indiscriminate firing. The
petitioner is one of the accused in the case and is alleged to have
fired upon the deceased. Although it is argued that there is
previous enmity between the parties, considering the fact that it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18038 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
is a case of double murder by indiscriminate firing, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application
for regular bail stands rejected.
9. However, if the trial is delayed by the prosecution,
the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
10. It is made clear that any observation made herein
is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…