Arun Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32710 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2024 Thana- BAUNSI District- Araria ====================================================== Arun Singh, Son of Late Shalendra Singh @ Shobh Singh, Resident of Village - Tomghoti, P.S.- Bousi, District - Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.T. Case No. 463 of 2024 arising out of Bausi P.S. Case No. 103 of 2024 dated 20.05.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, Kabita Devi, transferred some land in favour of her younger son namely, Shivraj Singh, who resides in Delhi. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner, Arun Singh, (elder son) started frequently assaulting his parents and on 20.05.2024, at about 11:30 A.M., the petitioner came to their house and assaulted her husband with dabiya, inflicting 3-4 blows on his head which caused grievous injury resulting in his death.

4. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel are that the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased, has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32710 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 been languishing in jail since 07.06.2024 and the FIR has been registered by the mother of the petitioner, though, she claimed herself to be an eyewitness of the alleged crime but during the course of trial, she deposed that she herself had not seen the commission of the murder and other persons told her about the petitioner's role in killing of her husband. So, the informant of this case did not support her own version made in the FIR.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR, case diary and mainly trial court's report which shows that the petitioner's trial is at the verge of end as the same is running for the defence evidence, so, considering this aspect and mainly the nature of allegation appearing against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage, accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

7. The trial court is directed to conclude the petitioner's trial at the earliest without giving unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

(Shailendra Singh, J) maynaz/- U T