Patna High Court
Amresh Prasad @ BajrangiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
Bail was granted because the prosecution failed to produce substantive evidence linking the petitioner to the murder.
Summary
The petitioner, Amresh Prasad, was arrested in a murder case under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, alleged to have killed the informant's father‑in‑law. The petitioner’s counsel argued that there were no eye‑witnesses, the post‑mortem showed death due to cardio‑respiratory arrest with no external injuries, and the FIR’s reference to the petitioner’s slippers was never substantiated. The State and the informant opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the charge. The court examined the FIR, case diary, and post‑mortem report and found no specific incriminating material against the petitioner. Considering the lack of concrete evidence and the petitioner’s clean record, the court ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case where evidence is largely circumstantial
- Whether the absence of an eye‑witness and lack of forensic linkage to the petitioner justifies bail
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- insufficient evidence
- post‑mortem report
- suspicion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83646 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-279 Year-2025 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Amresh Prasad @ Bajrangi, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Saryu Prasad
Resident of Village- Gyanibigha, P.S.- Sakurabad, District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandni Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priya Ranja, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP
For the Informant ; Mr. Aniket Rai, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shrish Anurag, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, petitioner is alleged to
have committed the murder of father-in-law of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He next submits that there is not a single eye witness of
the incident except the family members of the informant and
name of the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on
the basis of suspicion. He next submits that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83646 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
post-mortem report, it appears that there is no external injury on
the body of the deceased and the cause of death is due to cardio
respiratory arrest. He next submits that in para-56 of the case
diary, it is evident that in the FIR pair of slipper of the petitioner
was mentioned but upon investigation no slippers were
produced by the informant’s side before the Investigating
Officer. He lastly submits that petitioner is in custody since
23.09.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-
3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel for the informant oppose the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
6. On perusal of the FIR, case diary, impugned order
dated 13.11.2025 and post-mortem report of the deceased, it
appears that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner
and from perusal of para-56 of the case diary it is also evident
that in the FIR a pair of slippers of the petitioner was mentioned
but upon investigation no slippers were produced by the
informant’s side before the Investigating Officer and also the
fact that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in
para-3 of the bail petition. So, considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case and submission of learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83646 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
counsel for the petitioner, let the above-named petitioner be
released on bail, on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class,
Jehanabad in connection with Sakurabad P.S. Case No.279 of
2025.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Harshita/-
U T
Checking your session…