IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50136 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-769 Year-2024 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar @ Monu S/O Shambhu Sah Resident Of Village- Mahua Mukundpur, Ward No. 23, P.S- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivjee Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Shivjee Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 16.08.2024, in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 769 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 14.08.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. As per prosecution case, allegation against the petitioner is that he has killed the wife of the informant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. From a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that the FIR has been instituted against unknown persons and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner has confessed his guilt in the present occurrence. The fingerprint received from the place of occurrence which match with the fingerprint of the petitioner and the same was confirmed in the report dated 04.02.2025 of the Director, Fingerprint Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50136 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026 2/3 Bureau which suggests that the petitioner has committed the present crime in question. The fingerprint report of the Director, Fingerprint Bureau, C.I.D., Bihar, Patna is hereinquoted below:- “izfrosnu vaxqykad C;wjks] vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA vaxqykad C;wjks dk izlax ...FPB/08-F/24… ¼d`i;k lEeu rFkk vU; lHkh i=kpkj esa bl izlax dk mYys[k djs½ iqfyl v/kh{kd] oS”kkyh --------------------------------------------------------------------------------}kjk izsf’krA okn la0&egqvk Fkkuk dkaM la[; k&769@24 fnukad&14-08-2024 /kkjk&103¼1½@118¼2½ ch0,u0,l0 With reference to the above mentioned case a comparison was made between the life photographs of chance foot print marked ‘F1’(blood stained) found at the scene of crime and the specimen ‘Left’ foot print marked ‘S-1’ said to be of accused ‘Monu Kumar’ @ Sujeet Kumar S/o Sambhu Sah. Following similarities were found:- (1) Both the foot prints marked ‘F1’ and ‘S-1’ are similar in physiognomy. (2) The direction and distribution of the clearly visible toes in both the prints are almost similar. (3) The relative positions of Angutha and ‘chichi’ in both the prints are similar. (4) Angutha is angular in both the prints. (5) The shape and size of toes in both the prints are almost similar. (6) The ‘Zangiri line’ in both the prints are similar. Their concavities and convexities are same. (7) The ‘Pab’, ‘Choti Assi’, ‘Khali Jagah,’ and the ‘Tallies’ in both the prints are similar. (8) Geyer’s measurement test applied on the foot prints point to their similarities. Sd/- funs”kd&lg&eq[; jktdh; vaxqykad ijh{kd] vaxqykad C;qjk]s vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj fuEufyf[kr jktdh; vaxqykad ijh{kdksa us Hkh ijh{k.k fd;k%& ¼1½ Jh vfuy dqekj xqIrk ¼2½ Jh y[ku yky flag Sd/- funs”kd&lg&eq[; jktdh; vaxqykad ijh{kd] vaxqykad C;qjk]s vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj QksVks fo”ks’kK%& 1- eks0 “kguokt vuoj 2- Jh jktdqekj Hkkjrh Vadd%& 1- vktkn dqekj ” Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50136 of 2025(6) dt.16-03-2026 3/3 The petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2025. Apart from the aforesaid, DNA report of the petitioner was also matched with the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in question which is clear from fingerprint report. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 769 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 7. Prayer is refused. Ranjeet/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U T