Patna High Court
Vimlesh Kumar @ Veer Kumar Mahto @ Beer KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the privilege of bail in the present circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of a man whose body was found in a tempo. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner called the deceased, leading to his death, a claim supported by the statements of the deceased's brother (PW‑1) and wife under Section 161 of the CrPC. The defence argues that the petitioner is innocent, points to a conflicting statement by another witness (Vijay Rai) and contends that the investigating agency failed to obtain the deceased's mobile call data records. The court examined the contradictory testimonies and the seriousness of the charge. Considering the gravity of the offence and the evidence presented, the court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- CrPC 161
- evidence
- call data records
- witness testimony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38514 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2023 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Vimlesh Kumar @ Veer Kumar Mahto @ Beer Kumar S/o Ramtahal Mahto
R/o Village- Rabaich, P.O. and P.S.- Bhaktiarpur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Bhaskar Shankar
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 06-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an application for regular bail on behalf of
the petitioner for the offences alleged under Section 302/34 of
the IPC, registered in connection with Raghopur P.S.Case No.
282 of 2023.
3. As per allegation, the husband of the informant
went out on call of the petitioner. Subsequently, his dead-body
was recovered from a tempo parked outside his house.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated. The brother of the deceased is a witness of inquest.
He in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC has stated
that co-accused Vijay Rai had called the deceased, whereas the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38514 of 2025(4) dt.06-01-2026
2/2
wife of the deceased Usha Devi has stated in her fardbayan that
the petitioner had called the deceased. Learned senior counsel
has submitted further that the investigating authority did not try
to receive the CDR of mobile set of the deceased.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has submitted that the brother of the deceased has been
examined as P.W.1 and during trial he stated that it was the
petitioner who called the deceased. The wife of the deceased has
also stated that it was the petitioner who called the deceased.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
this Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of
bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
HR/-
U T
Checking your session…