Patna High Court
Amarjeet Singh @ Amarjit Singh @ Nippo Singh @ Nipo SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Amarjeet Singh and Bittu Singh, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a murder case (PS Case No. 212 of 2023) involving alleged firing that resulted in the death of the informant's father. The FIR charges them under IPC Sections 302, 286, 504/34 and Arms Act Section 27, but the petitioners argue they have clean records and that the informant’s allegations specifically name only Gopal as the shooter, rendering the accusations against them vague and omnibus. The State contends that the father’s death is undisputed and that all accused, including the petitioners, were present and participated in the firing, and that the investigation is ongoing. The court examined the specificity of the allegations and the seriousness of the offences, finding insufficient grounds to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the court rejected the petitioners’ prayer for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused under IPC Sections 302, 286, 504/34 and Arms Act Section 27.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 286, 302, 34, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- firearms
- IPC
- Arms Act
- bail jurisprudence
- clean antecedent
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64113 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2023 Thana- MAHESHKHUNT District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Amarjeet Singh @ Amarjit Singh @ Nippo Singh @ Nipo Singh son of
Rajeev Singh RO Village -Patla Ward No 16 PS -Maheshkhut District
-Khagaria
2. Bittu Singh @ Nilesh singh @ Nilesh Kumar @ Bittu Kumar son of Rajeev
Singh RO Village -Patla Ward No 16 PS -Maheshkhut District -Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anirudh Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 212 of 2023, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections Sections 302, 286, 504/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that the accused persons came variously armed and
Gopal Singh and his wife, Mamta, gave orders to kill, on which
Gopal, Prittam, Sahil, Amarjeet, Bittu, Aman, Paramjeet and
Rajeev started firing indiscriminately, further gunshot fired by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64113 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
Gopal hit his father on his chest, then firing made by other
accused also hit his father on his body and his father died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant specifically alleges that it was Gopal who fired
causing fire-arm injury on chest of his father and thereafter
other accused also fired causing fire-arm injury on his body, but
then it is submitted that allegation of firing against other
accused persons including the petitioners except Gopal is
general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that
informant’s and petitioners’ sides are on litigating terms.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that what is not
in dispute rather stands admitted is that father of the informant
died. It is further submitted no doubt specific allegation of firing
causing fire-arm injury on chest of the father of the informant is
against Gopal, but then other accused including the petitioners
are also alleged to have fired and father of the informant also
received fire-arm injury on other parts of the body apart from
chest. It is also submitted that presence of the accused persons at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64113 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
the place of occurrence embolden Gopal and others including
the petitioners to resort to firing leading to death of the father of
the informant. It is submitted that investigation in the case is
continuing.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.