Patna High Court
Vimal SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding insufficient evidentiary basis to justify continued detention.
Summary
Vimal Singh applied for regular bail in a murder case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, where the informant alleged that Singh and co‑accused killed her husband. The informant’s statements were inconsistent: an earlier recorded statement described a friendly relationship with Singh, while the FIR‑recorded statement implicated him, though she was not an eyewitness. The prosecution relied on a purported confessional statement by Singh, which Singh denied making, and on the allegation that the fatal bullet came from his firearm. The defence highlighted a forensic report indicating the bullet was not fired from Singh’s licensed weapon and noted Singh’s lack of prior criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial custody. Considering the informant’s non‑eyewitness status, the forensic evidence, and the absence of a reliable confession, the court ordered that Singh be released on bail upon furnishing a bond with sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the murder charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the alleged confessional statement and the informant’s testimony constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail.
- Whether the forensic report showing the bullet did not originate from the petitioner’s firearm affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- forensic report
- confessional statement
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- evidentiary discrepancy
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90837 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Vimal Singh Son of Mr Sheo Parsan Singh Resident of Village- Ranipur, P.S.-
Paliganj, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sadanand Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
For the Informant : Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 24-06-2026 Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Paliganj P.S. Case no.
200 of 2025 registered under sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms
Act, 1959.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that on 1.5.2025 at 5:00 a.m., two children of her village
informed her that her husband had been shot next to the
Hanuman Mandir. The informant along with the other members
of the family reached the place of occurrence and saw her
husband on the road having died as a result of gun shot injury.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90837 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
2/5
On being taken to AIIMS, Patna, he was declared dead. The
informant further states that on 30.4.2025, Vimal Singh had
called him on telephone and said that when he would come from
Paliganj, he should get fish. Her husband went with fish on the
vehicle of Vimal Singh. All of them had fish together. The
informant states that on asking her husband to return with her,
Vimal Singh and others stopped him and did not let him return.
The informant returned to her house in Paliganj alone. It is
further stated that about 10 days ago on the ground of
measurement of the land of Hardayal Rajwar, there had been an
altercation at the door of Vimal Singh and he had threatened to
kill her husband. As such she is convinced that the five named
accused persons including the petitioner herein have conspired
and killed her husband by shooting him.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.
There is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is submitted that the
statement of the informant/fardbeyan was recorded on earlier
occasion on 1.5.2025 at 12:45 p.m. at AIIMS, Patna, however
surprisingly, the same is not the fardbeyan and part of the FIR,
instead the fardbeyan which forms part of the FIR was recorded at
6:30 p.m. In the statement recorded at 12:45 p.m. on the same date,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90837 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
3/5
she states about the close friendship between her husband and Vimal
Singh i.e. the petitioner, their having food/party together and moving
about on motorcycle. In the fardbeyan which forms part of the FIR,
the version given by the informant is different, however the
informant does not claim to be an eyewitness. It is further submitted
that the prosecution is mainly relying upon the alleged confessional
statement of the petitioner made before police. It is categorically
denied that any confessional statement was made by the petitioner
before the police. Even as per the confession, there was accidental
fire from the pistol of the petitioner.
5. Learned Senior counsel further submits that by order
dated 16.4.2026, the forensic report of the licensed firearm of the
petitioner was called for from the concerned Court below. As per the
report received bearing FSL no.2493/2025, Patna dated 14.1.2026
from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna, the firing that
took place resulting in the death of the informant’s husband is from
some other firearm and not that of the petitioner. The petitioner has
no criminal antecedent. It is submitted that accepting the allegations
levelled including the so called confessional statement made before
police, no case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made
out. The petitioner is in custody since 3.5.2025 and chargesheet has
been submitted in the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90837 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
4/5
6. The application for bail is by opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted by
learned counsel for the informant that not only the petitioner is
named in the FIR but in course of investigation it has transpired that
the death of the informant’s husband took place as a result of gun
shot injury as a result of firing which took place from the petitioner’s
firearm. The petitioner confessed to the occurrence before the police.
If the intention on part of the petitioner was not suspicious and the
crime committed not intentional he would not have thrown the dead
body on the road. He being the main assailant, the application for bail
be rejected.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the informant not being
an eyewitness to the occurrence, the material that has transpired in
course of investigation including the contents of the fardbeyan of the
informant recorded at 12:45 p.m. on 1.5.2025 and the report of the
FSL, Patna which states that the fatal bullet was not fired from the
firearm of the petitioner together with the petitioner having remained
in custody for more than a year since 3.5.2025 and chargesheet
having been submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to
be enlarged on bail in connection with Paliganj P.S. Case no. 200 of
2025 (Sessions Trial no.1909 of 2025) on furnishing bail bond of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90837 of 2025(5) dt.24-06-2026
5/5
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, Danapur, Patna.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.