Patna High CourtCR. MISC./37042/2025bail rejected

Priyans Raj @ Prince Raj Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-06Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37042 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-785 Year-2024 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Priyans Raj @ Prince Raj Singh S/o- Late Ganesh Kumar Singh VillageChitnawa, P.S. Maner, Dist. Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjiv Sharan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.Tr. No.930 of 2025 arising out of Phulwari Sharif P.S. Case No.785 of 2024 lodged under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 302/34 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is pending before the court of A.D.J.-II, Patna.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against three named and one unknown accused persons with allegation that under conspiracy, son of the informant was killed and dead body has been thrown near Dibra Chamber.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and only on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37042 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 suspicion, his name has figured in this case.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2024 and his antecedent is not clean. There is one criminal case pending against him. He further submits that a similarly situated person has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.7941 of 2025.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that material has come in the case diary against the present petitioner.

7. Upon specific query whether charge has been framed or not? Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not aware about framing of charge.

8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail 3 months after framing of charge. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T