Amit Singh @ Monu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33648 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2024 Thana- VISHAMBHARPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Amit Singh @ Monu Singh, son of Surendra Singh, resident of villageBishambharpur, Ps- Kaseya, Dist- Kushinagar, UP 2.

Chhema Devi @ Manorma Devi, Wife of Amit Singh @ Monu Singh resident of village- Bishambharpur, Ps- Kaseya, Dist- Kushinagar UP ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Priyadarshni Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Bishambharpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 137(2), 140(3), 142, 61(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that one infant baby was kidnapped by the petitioners and co-accused Sudhir Singh and Chanda Devi. During course of investigation, it has come that petitioner no. 2 and co-accused Runa Devi were

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/3 going to Lucknow via Prayagraj and the infant was recovered from the lap of the petitioner no. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioner no. 1 is the husband of petitioner no. 2. It is further submitted that charge has already been framed. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 31.08.2024 having no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail on behalf of the petitioners stands rejected.

8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and take all endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably, within a period of nine (09) months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioners shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after the expiry

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 3/3 of nine months.

(Khatim Reza, J) premchand/- U T