IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75385 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- BELAW District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Kalinder Singh @ Kalendra Singh, Son Shivpujan Singh, R/o Village - Belaw @ Belaon, P.S - Belaon, District – Kaimur (Bhabhua). ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate Ms. Saobiya Mushtaque, Advocate Mr. Yasir Ashraf, Advocate Mr. Rampravesh Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 4 11-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Belaw P.S. Case no.83 of 2025 registered under sections 109(1), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along with his two sons are said to have brutally assaulted the father of the informant seriously injuring him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injured died eleven days later in course of treatment. However, from the contents of the postmortem examination report (Annexure-P/2) it would transpire that the same does not support the prosecution case insomuch as no external injury has Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75385 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 been found. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 21.8.2025. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case. 5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who referring to the postmortem examination report received from Uttar Pradesh and attached with the case diary, submits that the cause of death is said to be cranio-cerebral injury due to head injury consequent to blunt trauma. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. together with the contents of the postmortem report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected. 7. The petitioner is granted liberty to renew his prayer for bail on completing one year in custody or after framing of charge, whichever is later. avinash/- (Partha Sarthy, J) U T