Md. Soji @ Md. Souzim v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54239 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2024 Thana- BIHPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Md. Soji @ Md. Souzim S/o Md. Isro @ Md. Israfil R/o Village- Balaha, P.S.- Bhawanipur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bihpur P.S. Case No-157 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code but later on Section 302 of the IPC was added.

3. As per allegation, the Petitioner and ten other coaccused have assaulted the husband of the Informant, causing serious injury to him, which resulted into his death in the course of treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation against all the accused persons including the Petitioner is general and omnibus

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54239 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/3 in nature and there is no specific allegation against the Petitioner. He further submits that the co-accused Samsid, Md. Mojim, Bugo Alee and Md. Noushad have already been enlarged on regular bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court by the order dated 01.05.2025, 08.05.2025 and 04.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 23709 of 2025, 65990 of 2025, 41737 of 2025 and 42504 of 2025, respectively.

5. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 07.07.2025.

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

7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.

8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the case of the Petitioner is distinguished from those of the coaccused because the Petitioner is in custody just since 07.07.2025, i.e only for about one month, whereas the coaccused were in custody for several months. He further submits that as per the order of the District Court, there is sufficient material in the case diary showing that the Petitioner was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54239 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 3/3 present at the time of the occurrence and had participated in the alleged occurrence.

9. Considering the material on record and period of custody, I am not persuaded to enlarge the Petitioner on bail at this stage.

10. The present petition is rejected, accordingly. (Jitendra Kumar, J.) Chandan/- U T