IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69507 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-524 Year-2024 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Mukesh Yadav @ Fatak yadav Son of Late Devan yadav R/o Village - Tilakpur, P.S. - Sultanganj, Dist. - Bhagalpur, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mrs.Pravina Kumari For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Sangeeta Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 524 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act. 3. As per the FIR, on 03.11.2024 at about 6:00 p.m., the accused persons including the petitioner, armed with firearms, surrounded Ramesh Singh at Nasopur Baasa. At the instigation of Sunil Singh, Anil Singh, Chandan Singh @ Janvati, and others fired at Ramesh Singh, causing fatal chest injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner also fired on him. When the informant raised alarm, the accused persons fired at him, but he Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69507 of 2025(3) dt.05-02-2026 2/2 was escaped. Ramesh Singh was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated due to dirty local politics. The petitioner is under custody since 21.01.2025. She has submitted further that from perusal of FIR, it is evident that the petitioner has no intention to commit the said offence. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has fired at the deceased and he has confessed his guilt. The witnesses, in paragraph nos. 7 to 11, 23, 24, 46 and 47 of the case diary, have fully supported the prosecution case. 6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. kundan/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T