Patna High Court
Baliram Singh @ Balram SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The petition for anticipatory bail was denied.
Summary
Baliram Singh applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a murder case (Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) based solely on a co‑accused's confessional statement, as his name does not appear in the FIR and no physical evidence links him to the crime. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner’s mobile‑tower location near the crime scene on the date of the incident and his prior communication with the co‑accused. The petitioner argued that the implication was merely suspicion, he was residing in Saharanpur at the relevant time, and he has a clean antecedent. The Court examined the tower‑location evidence and the confessional statement, finding them sufficient to corroborate the allegation. Consequently, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, stating that the order bears no effect on the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner is not named in the FIR but is implicated through a co‑accused’s confessional statement and tower‑location evidence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- tower location evidence
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 137(2)
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91463 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2025 Thana- VISHAMBHARPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Baliram Singh @ Balram Singh, Son of Late Indrajeet Singh, Resident of
Village- Salehpur, P.S.- Vishambharpur, District- Gopalganj, at Present
resding at Gangoh Road, Gatta Mill Colony, Near Manak Mau Bijli Ghar, ,
P.S.-Saharanpur, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Vishambharpur P.S. Case No. 96 of 2025 registered for the
offence under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he,
along with the apprehended co-accused Sandesh Kumar Singh,
has committed the murder of the husband of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced in
the confessional statement of co-accused Sandesh Kumar Singh.
It has further been submitted that the confessional statement of a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91463 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
co-accused cannot be taken into account at this stage and despite
such a statement, no incriminating material has been recovered
against the petitioner. It has next been submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only because
the father of the petitioner, namely, Indrajeet Singh, was shot
dead by the deceased and therefore, only on suspicion, the
petitioner has been implicated. It has also been submitted that
the petitioner resides at Saharanpur and from perusal of the case
diary, it would be evident that on 04.05.2025 his location was at
Saharanpur. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has
clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the state has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail and while referring to the case
diary, it has been submitted that the tower location of the
petitioner was found to be in and around the place of occurrence
on the date of occurrence and he had also talked to the
apprehended co-accused, Sandesh Kumar Singh, one day prior
to the said incident. It has, thus, been submitted that in view of
such evidence, the petitioner should not be granted the benefit
of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account that the petitioner's tower location was also found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91463 of 2025(3) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
in and around the place of occurrence, which also goes on to
corroborate with the confessional statement made by the co-
accused Sandesh Kumar Singh, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…