The court provided bail to the accused considering discrepancies in evidence and the need for trial cooperation.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

3 22-01-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since

14.09.2025 and 12.09.2025 in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 191 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 12.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. , 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act .

3. According to prosecution case, petitioners and other co-accused persons are alleged to have surrounded the informant and her husband and fired upon her husband as a result, informant’s husband died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the present FIR has been instituted on the basis of inquest report and postmortem was conducted before lodging of the FIR. Although, it has come in paragraph 2 of the case diary that for the same occurrence, Hilsa P.S. Case No. 555/2025 was instituted which suggests that at the time of recording Sanha, the name of the petitioners were not transpired in the present case. Thereafter, the informant has filed the present case at about 21.54 hours but the inquest report prepared on 4:30 P.M. and postmortem was made on 9:30 PM. Apart from aforesaid, as per allegation in FIR, five persons fired upon the husband of the informant but only two firearm injury was found on the deceased. Apart from aforesaid, previous dispute is going on between the parties and one Title Suit No. 111 of 2019 is also going between the parties and the present FIR was instituted afterthought only to falsely implicate this petitioner. He further submits that the police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioners and the petitioner no. 1 is in custody since 14.09.2025 and petitioner no. 2 is is in custody since 12.09.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR and the specific allegation of firing is against the petitioners upon the husband of the informant and also submits that petitioners carries three criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioners are bail in the pending matters.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1, Hilsa, Nalanda, in connection with Hilsa P.S. Case No. 191 of 2025, with the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail b