Baijnath Rawat @ Baijhnath Raut v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39919 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2003 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Baijnath Rawat @ Baijhnath Raut S/o Late Ram Jatan Raut R/o VillageRampur Keshopatti, Ward No.7, Bejhadih Rupauli, P.S.-Samastipur, DistrictSamastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mushrigharari P.S. Case No. 36 of 2003 instituted for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, three unknown culprits armed with gun fired upon the informant and Raj Raushan, as a result of which Raj Raushan sustained injuries and, later on, died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39919 of 2025(4) dt.03-09-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that as per paragraph nos. 55 and 81, the witnesses have specifically stated that this petitioner committed the murder of the deceased and further, the post-mortem report also supports the prosecution case, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there being ample material against the petitioner in the case diary, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39919 of 2025(4) dt.03-09-2025 3/3

9. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for grant of bail before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T