Saurav Kumar Singh @ Saurav Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31588 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2023 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ====================================================== Saurav Kumar Singh @ Saurav Singh S/o- Pradeep Singh Village- Belha PSPhulparas District-Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 299 of 2023, lodged on 30.05.2023 under Sections 302, 120(B) & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 31.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55630 of 2024.

4. Counsel further submits that the allegations are against three accused persons, out of whom two have been granted bail vide orders dated 22.02.2024 and 13.08.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 11195 of 2024 and 37809 of 2025, respectively. He further submits that the allegations against the present petitioner are similar to those against the co-accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31588 of 2025(4) dt.19-09-2025 2/2 who have been granted bail, therefore, the petitioner should also be granted bail. He also submits that on the previous occasion, the report had been called.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations made in the FIR are not similar to those against the accused persons who have been granted bail by this Court. He further submits that upon perusal of the aforesaid report, it transpires that there are 12 chargesheet witnesses, out of whom 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined. It further transpires from the report that if both parties co-operate, the case is likely to be concluded within six months.

6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Speedy trial is a constitutional vision of justice. For this reason, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial at the earliest.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T