IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30724 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-685 Year-2025 Thana- MANER District- Patna ====================================================== Bullu Ray S/o- Yogendra Ray R/Village- Jiwarakhan Tola Goriya Asthana P.S- Maner Dist- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Sunidhi Vimal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ramchandra Sahni, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 5 18-08-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 02. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 685 of 2025 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2) of BNS. 03. As per prosecution case, the maternal uncle of the informant had been residing for last 7-8 years with him. He used to sleep near a temple and he went to sleep at the same place on 12.09.2025 and in the morning he was found dead. When the CCTV footage of nearby place was checked, a person was seen fleeing away from the spot after hitting the head of the maternal uncle of the informant with a stone and that person was identified by the villagers as this petitioner. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30724 of 2026(5) dt.18-08-2026 2/3 04. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has been made accused only on the basis of CCTV footage. But during investigation it has nowhere been mentioned that the electronic evidence was certified under Section 65B of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the veracity of such evidence would always be doubtful. Learned counsel referred to the case of State by Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Pallulahid Ahamad Arimutta and another, SLA (Criminal) No. 242 of 2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it has been that CDR details of some of the accused or the allegations of tampering of evidence on the part of one of the respondents was an aspect that was to be examined at the stage of trial. Learned senior counsel further submits that in the light of this decision, the CCTV footage for proving the guilt of the petitioner could be seen at the stage of trial and at the stage of bail, the same could not be relied. The petitioner is having clean antecedent and he was arrested from his house and is in custody since 14.09.2025. Charge sheet has been submitted. 05. Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned APP submits that the petitioner has been specifically named by the informant in the written Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30724 of 2026(5) dt.18-08-2026 3/3 report/FIR and the CCTV footage was taken from the house of one Gorakh Rai, whose statement was also recorded and in his statement he has also identified this petitioner, who hit the deceased with a stone and ran away at around 11.32 PM. Other co-villagers also identified this petitioner after seeing the CCTV footage. 06. Having regard to the specific nature of allegation against the petitioner and considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, his prayer for bail is rejected. 07. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. DKS/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J) U T