Arvind Singh @ Arvind Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24718 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2020 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== Arvind Singh @ Arvind Kumar Singh Son of Rajendra Singh R/o - Patraha, P.S.- Choutham, Distt.- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with Chautham P.S. Case no.149 of 2020 registered under sections 302, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that as a result of indiscriminate firing resorted to by the four named accused persons including the petitioner herein as also 34 unknown persons, his father sustained gunshot injuries and died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 6.9.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. no.12772 of 2024 giving
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24718 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025 2/3 liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge, whichever is later. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.5.2023, it has been more than nine months since passing of the aforesaid order dated 6.9.2024, however, as per instructions received, charge has not been framed in the learned trial Court for no fault of this petitioner but only for the reason that some of the co-accused are not appearing nor cooperating in the learned Court below. The petitioner has remained in custody since 25.5.2023 and undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial. It is thus submitted that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.
6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court. As per the report received contained in letter dated 20.5.2025 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Khagaria, the case is pending for receipt of the compliance report with respect to the non-bailable warrants issued against the remaining three co-accused.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24718 of 2025(4) dt.20-06-2025 3/3 the FIR together with the contents of the earlier order of rejection dated 6.9.2024 and charge not having been framed in the learned trial Court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
8. The petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T