Patna High Court
Manoranjan Pandey @ Raja PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that, in view of the lack of direct eyewitness identification and the questionable evidentiary value of mobile tower data, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail subject to conditions.
Summary
Manoranjan Pandey was arrested in connection with the murder of Arjun Yadav, alleged to have been the mastermind behind the shooting that led to Yadav's death. The prosecution relied on mobile tower location data, call detail records, and confessional statements of co‑accused, while the informant, an eye‑witness, did not positively identify the shooters or the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident, that there was no direct eyewitness evidence, and that the mobile data lacked forensic reliability. The court examined the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act but noted the absence of substantive incriminating evidence against the petitioner. Considering the doubts about the investigation and the petitioner’s right to liberty, the court granted regular bail with conditions of cooperation and presence in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with murder and offences under the Arms Act.
- Whether mobile tower location data and CDRs constitute sufficient evidence to deny bail.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affects the presumption of guilt.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- arms act
- mobile tower evidence
- FIR delay
- criminal procedure
- conspiracy
- evidence admissibility
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71243 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2025 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar
======================================================
Manoranjan Pandey @ Raja Pandey Son of Late Srimannarayan Pandey R/o
Villaage - Banarpur, P.S. - Buxar(Muffasil), Dist. - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Bihari Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Dimpal Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Radha Krishna, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
7 13-03-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 61(2)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘B.N.S.’) and
under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Vide order dated 09.06.2025,
further added Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
informant was going to meet the authorities of Chausa Power
Plant on his Mahindra Thar vehicle. He stopped near Chaurasia
betel shop at Mohanpurwa for purchasing a bottle of water. As
he reached near the right side of his vehicle, three persons on a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71243 of 2025(7) dt.13-03-2026
2/5
bike arrived, started firing due to which informant’s brother
Arjun Yadav received three gunshot injuries and fell down there.
The miscreants proceeded towards Bechanpurwa. The injured
was rushed to Sadar hospital, Buxar. He was referred to Trauma
Center, Varansi. During course of reaching Trauma Center,
Varanasi, Arjun Yadav (deceased) died. The deceased was a
contractor in the power plant and it is alleged that the petitioner
along with others due to competition between them have killed
the deceased. It is further alleged that the petitioner has earlier
threatened the deceased of dire consequences. The informant
believes that this offence has been conducted by the accused
persons and the petitioner is the master-mind.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2025 and
he has having criminal antecedent of four cases. It has further
been submitted that in this case there is no eye-witness. Save
and except the confessional statement of the co-accused and the
petitioner, there is nothing against the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner has become the victim of a well hatched and
promulgated conspiracy which is evident from the fact that the
First Information Report (in short ‘FIR’) has been instituted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71243 of 2025(7) dt.13-03-2026
3/5
after two days of the incident, i.e. the date of incident was
26.05.2025 but the date of lodging of the FIR was 28.05.2025.
The police was informed about the occurrence on the same day
and the inquest report was also prepared on the same day.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the name of this petitioner has been dragged in
this case only on the basis of suspicion arising out of mobile
tower location which is evident from the fact that during
investigation, the investigating agency has stated in Paragraph
‘147’ of the case diary that they have found the location of
mobile at Patna on the date and time of the occurrence. The role
of the informant himself is also important who is the eye-
witness of the case who has neither identified those three
persons who arrived and fired at the deceased, nor sure about
the involvement of the petitioner in this case. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has further submitted that the entire
investigation is only based on mobile tower location and CDR
of different mobile numbers which has no evidentiary value in
terms of Forensic examination. In this case, police has arrested
Toofani Gupta, Shivam Chaudhary and Sonu Gupta and they
have accepted their guilt but investigating agency has developed
a new concocted theory in connivance with the informant to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71243 of 2025(7) dt.13-03-2026
4/5
implicate the petitioner which is further strengthened by this
fact that the FIR has been lodged after two days of the
occurrence.
6. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP
for the State have vehemently opposed the bail and it has been
submitted that it is not a murder simplicitor rather the plan was
well hatched and which is evident from the case diary that the
tower locations and the communication between the shooters
and the petitioner is consistently there. It is also clear that during
investigation it has come that Dinesh and Nikhil are the persons
who have murdered the deceased. This petitioner has been
implicated as he was in constant touch with these two assailants.
7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, it is
very strange that police has arrested three persons in this case
Toofani Gupta, Shivam Chaudhary and Sonu Gupta but later on
in fag end of the investigation this petitioner was added on the
basis of tower location and CDR. Though in the FIR there is
name of this petitioner and the informant of this case happens to
be an eye-witness but he himself has not stated in clear tongues
as to who has murdered the deceased and the delay which has
been caused in lodging of the FIR creates serious doubt as the
inquest of the deceased was prepared on the same day of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71243 of 2025(7) dt.13-03-2026
5/5
occurrence.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the condition that
the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall remain
physically present on each and every date in the learned trial
court. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on
bail in connection with Buxar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 232 of
2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.03.2026
Transmission Date 13.03.2026
Checking your session…