Anshu @ Ansh Singh @ Anshu Singh @ Tusar Raman @ Tushar Kumar Raman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20149 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar ====================================================== Anshu @ Ansh Singh @ Anshu Singh @ Tusar Raman @ Tushar Kumar Raman Son of Amit Dev @ Amit Deo @ Amit Dev Singh@ Amitedav Singh R/o Villlage - Babhangama, P.S. - Riga, Dist. - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 37 of 2022, arising out of Piprahi P.S. Case No. 228 of 2021 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35256 of 2024, taking into account the nature and gravity of offence as also there being fifteen criminal antecedents of similar nature of offences. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20149 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 11.03.2022 without any rhymes or reason, having sixteen (16) criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6.

Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. It is submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is fixed for defence evidence, which is evident from perusal of the impugned order. 7.

There is no new ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. It appears that the trial is going on and is on the verge of its conclusion.

8.

In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T