Patna High Court
Amresh Singh @ Amresh ChandravansiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to regular bail subject to the conditions imposed under the B.N.S.S., 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Amresh Singh, was charged under Sections 498‑A, 494, 302 and 34 of the IPC for the alleged murder of his wife. He had been in custody since 3 April 2024 and his earlier bail application was rejected. The petitioner claimed an alibi, supported by CCTV footage certified under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act, and argued that he was not present at the scene, had a clean record, and that other co‑accused had been granted bail. The State and the informant opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the fact that many witnesses remained unexamined. After considering the submissions, the court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs 30,000, imposing conditions under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, including surety by a family member and regular appearances before the trial court and police station.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for regular bail despite being charged with murder, dowry death and related offences under the IPC.
- Whether the alibi evidence (CCTV footage) and the petitioner's clean antecedents justify granting bail.
- Whether the pending trial, including unexamined witnesses, warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 2(1)(d), 480(3)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 65(B)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 494, 498-A
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- murder
- dowry death
- regular bail
- evidence
- alibi
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86927 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Amresh Singh @ Amresh Chandravansi S/o Madan Singh @ Madan
Chandravansi R/o Village- Holding No.965, Krishna Toli, Jhitkiya, Ward
No.2, North of Pathak Colony, M.I.T Brahampur, P.O- M.I.T., Barhanpura,
P.S- Brahampura, Dist- Muzaffarpur, Pin Code- 842001 (Bihar)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anish Chandra, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 648 of 2024 arising out of Brahampura P.S.
Case No. 84 of 2024 lodged on 02.04.2024, for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 302 & 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order
dated 14.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61624 of 2024.
Counsel submits that admittedly, this case has been lodged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86927 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
under sections 498-A, 494, 302 & 34 of the IPC. But, he
submits that on the earlier occasion and on this occasion, it is
his specific case that on the date of alleged occurrence, the
petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, rather, he
was present at other place and in this regard, he possesses a
C.C.T.V. footage with certificate under section 65(B) of the
Indian Evidence Act. Counsel submits that the bail application
of the petitioner was earlier rejected only due to the reason that
he is the husband of the deceased. Counsel also submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2024, having clean
antecedent. Counsel further submits that charge has already
been framed and other persons have been granted bail. Counsel
also submits that the allegation of section 494 of the IPC upon
the petitioner is not correct. Counsel further submits that the
petitioner is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall
be imposed upon him.
4. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it is
the petitioner who is responsible for the death of the victim. He
submits that according to his information, charge has been
framed and prosecution evidence is going on.
5. Learned APP for the State also opposes the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86927 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
for bail of the petitioner and submits that on previous occasion,
report with regard to the present stage of the trial was called for,
and from the said report, it transpires that out of 13 witnesses,
only six witnesses have been examined and seven witnesses are
yet to be examined.
6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case,
let the above named petitioner be granted bail, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the
satisfaction of District & Additional Sessions Judge-XI,
Muzaffarpur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 648 of 2024
arising out of Brahampura P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down U/s 480(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023
with the following further conditions:-
I. one of the bailor should be the family member of
the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his
bona fide;
II. the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on
each and every scheduled date, and failure to do so for three
consecutive dates without any plausible reason/explanation shall
be resulted into cancellation of his bail bonds by the Trial Court
itself;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86927 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
III. the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station for two years, within every fortnight, to mark his
attendance.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…