Surendra Ram @ Surendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45827 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-272 Year-2024 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Surendra Ram @ Surendra Kumar son of Makhhan Ram Resident Of Village -Gandak Colony No 02 Ps -Town District -East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 272 of 2024 dated 10.06.2024 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 302 and 120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, It is alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused person came to the house of the informant and having called took the son of the informant away under conspiracy. Thereafter, at about 8 PM, the informant received information that his son was killed by firearm near Hardia Math.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45827 of 2025(2) dt.16-09-2025 2/2 this case. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that this is a case of last seen theory as the deceased was lastly seen alive with the petitioner and the co-accused Pappu Thakur. The bail application of the co-accused Pappu Thakur, has already been rejected bail by this court vide order dated 16.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65358 of 2024.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T