Patna High Court
Mahendra SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that, due to the lack of direct incriminating evidence against the petitioner and his advanced age, bail should be granted subject to conditions.
Summary
Mahendra Singh, a 75‑year‑old accused, was charged under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and Arms Act section 27 for allegedly firing on and killing Chandan Kumar. The prosecution’s informant PW‑1 named nine persons as shooters but did not mention Singh, and the other prosecution witnesses also failed to implicate him. Singh’s earlier bail application had been rejected as the trial was near its conclusion, but he argued that six of ten witnesses had been examined and no direct evidence linked him to the crime. The court considered the lack of specific incriminating testimony, Singh’s advanced age and clean antecedents, and the fact that the prosecution had not examined the remaining witnesses. Accordingly, the court granted regular bail with monetary and personal surety conditions, ordering his presence at trial dates and stipulating cancellation provisions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused of serious offences (IPC 147,148,149,302 and Arms Act 27) when the trial is near completion.
- Whether the absence of the accused’s name in the informant’s testimony and other prosecution witnesses justifies bail.
- Whether the accused’s age and health are relevant factors for bail.
- Whether the incomplete examination of prosecution witnesses affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- Arms Act
- murder
- rioting
- age
- health
- evidentiary insufficiency
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20927 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-930 Year-2023 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Mahendra Singh, S/o Late Hardev Singh, Resident of Village-Bahpura, Police
Station-Bihta, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 15-05-2026 This is second regular bail application on behalf of
the petitioner. Earlier, his application for grant of bail was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 9024 of 2025.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
3. The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Bihta PS case No. 930 of 2023 corresponding
to Session Trial No. 25 of 2024 registered for the offence(s)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20927 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
2/5
punishable under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section(s) 27 of the Arms Act.
4. As per the prosecution case, there is an allegation
that altogether seven named persons including this petitioner
fired from their respective arms and killed one Chandan Kumar
@ Vicky.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that earlier the petitioner had moved before this Court with a
prayer for grant of regular bail, referred to above, however, his
bail application was rejected taking into account that the trial is
almost at the fag end.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that
the submissions made by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor at the relevant time, with respect to examination of
witnesses, was not correct and till date, total six witnesses have
been examined out of the total 10 witnesses. It has also been
submitted that the last witness was examined on 11.11.2025 and,
thereafter, till date, no prosecution witness has been examined.
7. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is
a 75-years old person and he has falsely been implicated in this
case with general and omnibus allegations of firing and killing
one Chandan Kumar @ Vicky.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20927 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
3/5
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the
attention of this Court towards the evidence of P.W.-1, who
happens to be the informant of this case, and refers to the
examination-in-chief, where the informant has categorically
named nine persons to have been carrying pistol and they had
all fired upon the person named Chandan, who received twelve
gunshot injuries. It has been pointed out that the informant has
not named the petitioner to be among the said persons, who had
fired upon said Chandan Kumar @ Vicky.
9. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that he possesses the deposition of all the other five prosecution
witnesses and none of them have named the petitioner to be an
accomplice of the other named persons, who were stated to have
fired upon said Chandan Kumar.
10. It has, thus, been submitted that in view of such
evidence of the informant, there is less chances of the petitioner
being convicted in the present case and considering the fact that
barring the FIR, there is nothing on record to suggest the
complicity of the petitioner in the present case, the petitioner
may be released on bail. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he is languishing in custody
since 23.08.2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20927 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
4/5
11. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits
that there is an allegation upon several persons of firing upon
said Chandan Kumar @ Vicky and the petitioner was one of
them along with six other persons as alleged in the FIR and the
deceased had admittedly received twelve fire-arm injuries. It
has been submitted that earlier other co-accused persons had
approached this Court for grant of bail, but the same was
rejected. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, does
not dispute the fact that the informant has not supported the case
of the prosecution as far as the petitioner was concerned when
he had deposed as P.W. 1 during the trial.
12. Regard being had to the facts and
circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the
petitioner has remained in custody since 23.08.2024, let the
petitioner, above-named, be released on bail on his/her
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in
connection with Bihta PS case No. 930 of 2023 corresponding
to Session Trial No. 25 of 2024, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20927 of 2026(3) dt.15-05-2026
5/5
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his/her bail
bonds.
(v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
13. It is made clear that the observations, if any,
made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
14. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.