Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26695/2025dismissed

Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-05Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26695 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-681 Year-2023 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Singh Son of Sanjiwan Singh @ Ram Sanjiwan Singh Resident of Village - Aurey, P.S.- Ramgarh chowk, District - Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amritesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-05-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Lakhisarai (Ramgarh Chowk) P.S. Case No. 681 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 325, 354, 504 and later on Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation, 15 named accused persons are said to have assaulted the victim, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injury and in course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the case of the petitioner is exactly on similar footing to that of co-accused Gopal Singh,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26695 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2025 2/2 Tripurari Singh and Arvind Singh, who have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the co-accused persons who have been granted bail, since the petitioner remained absconding.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

7. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge or after six months, whichever is earlier.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T