Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50927/2025bail rejected

Binod Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-25Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50927 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-282 Year-2024 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Binod Singh, S/o- Late Suchit Singh, Resident of Village- Chanka P.SNokha, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Amrit Lal, Advocate Mr. Nandu Kumar Yadav, Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 282 of 2024 dated 28.07.2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 103, 303(2), 118, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the previous bail petition of the petitioner bearing Cr. Misc. No. 319 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 on merit, seeing the seriousness of nature of the allegation. He further submits that the only new circumstance in this case is that length of the custody of the petitioner at present is about 10

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50927 of 2025(2) dt.25-07-2025 2/2 months, whereas at the time of rejection of the previous bail petition, he was in custody for about six months. He further submits that even charge has not been framed in this case and trial is likely to get very long time.

4. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 18.09.2024.

5. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail in view of serious nature of the allegation and period of custody.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail stands rejected.

9. However, if the trial is not concluded within next nine months from today, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) shoaib/- U T