Patna High Court

Niranjan Singh @ NiranjanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 14 May 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The court denied regular bail to the petitioner, finding that the seriousness of the offences and the risk of influencing witnesses outweighed the petitioner's claim for release.

Summary

Niranjan Singh, accused of murder, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and illegal possession of arms, applied for regular bail after being in custody since March 2022. The petitioner argued that several prosecution witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, had not supported the prosecution’s case, and that this indicated a lack of evidential strength. The State contended that the petitioner is a repeat offender with three serious prior cases and that granting bail would enable him to influence the remaining witnesses. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the risk of witness tampering. Relying on these considerations, the court declined to grant bail, holding that the balance of probabilities favored continued detention. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused of murder, attempt to murder, conspiracy and arms offences given the seriousness of the charges and the risk of witness tampering.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 307, 34

Subjects

bail
murder
attempt to murder
conspiracy
arms act
witness tampering
criminal antecedent

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28175 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2020 Thana- CHAUSA District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Niranjan Singh @ Niranjan Son of Late Geero Singh @ Late Giro Singh
                 Resident of village - Khoparia (Khopariya), P.S.- Chausa (Chousa), District -
                 Madhepura.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   14-05-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 307, 302, 120(B) and 34 of

                   the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this

                   is the third attempt of the petitioner to seek regular bail who is

                   alleged to have fired causing injury on chest of Suman who died

                   at the spot, though, in the FIR it is alleged that other accused

                   also fired. It is next submitted that petitioner is in custody since

                   04.03.2022 and out of 11 prosecution witnesses, 5 witnesses

                   have been examined, but then none of the witnesses have

                   supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses were
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28175 of 2026(2) dt.14-05-2026
                                                        2/2




                      also parents of the deceased, on which the learned APP for the

                      State submits that petitioner is a veteran criminal having

                      antecedent of three serious cases. It is further submitted by the

                      learned APP that when parents of the deceased have not

                      supported the case of the prosecution, as submitted by the

                      learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, that amply

                      demonstrates the influence of the petitioner, as it is difficult to

                      depose against a criminal.

                                   4. The learned APP next submits that if privilege of

                      regular bail is granted, chances are bright that petitioner after

                      coming out of the jail, will start influencing the remaining

                      witnesses.

                                   5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                      APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the

                      petitioner on bail.

                                   6. Accordingly, the instant regular bail application

                      stands rejected.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.