Patna High Court
Nagmani Singh @ Nagmani KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petition for regular bail was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Nagmani Singh, was charged with murder under Sections 302 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting his father. The petitioner applied for regular bail, arguing that the prosecution's witnesses were hearsay and that the forensic evidence showed only two bullet injuries, contrary to the claim of multiple shots. The State contended that the informant, the son of the deceased, was an eyewitness and that the widow’s statement corroborated the allegations. The court examined the credibility of the informant and the sufficiency of the evidence. Concluding that the petitioner did not merit the privilege of bail, the court rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a murder and conspiracy case
- Whether the informant’s statement qualifies as reliable eyewitness evidence
- Whether the forensic evidence undermines the prosecution’s case
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(b), 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- arms act
- hearsay
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62089 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2022 Thana- BHADAUR District- Patna
======================================================
Nagmani Singh @ Nagmani Kumar S/o Shree Kant Singh @ Tauli Singh R/o
vill - Baruane, P.S.- Bhadaur, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sucheta Yadav, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection
with Bahadur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2022, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The informant is son of the deceased. According to
his fardbeyan, three persons came on a motorcycle, namely
Rajeev Kumar, Nagmani Singh @ Nagmani Kumar (the
petitioner) and Rajesh Kumar @ Mithu. It is alleged that the
petitioner fired several shots at his father, who died at the spot.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the witnesses are hearsay. The inquest report was prepared
at 10:00 A.M. and the fardbeyan was lodged at 11:00 A.M. His
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62089 of 2025(4) dt.19-01-2026
2/2
further submission is that only two firearm injuries are present
on the dead body, whereas the allegation is of committing
several fire shots.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the informant is
an eyewitness. Two firearm injuries were found on the person of
the deceased and the widow of the deceased, who was on a
morning walk with the deceased, has also corroborated the
allegation in her statement.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the
privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Nirmal/-
U T
Checking your session…