← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64624/2025bail rejected

Sudhir Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-11Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64624 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Sudhir Paswan S/o Late Chamari Paswan Resident of Village- Purnadih, P.S.- Madanpur, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 140(3), 103(1), 61(2), 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner transpired during course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Deepak Kumar. Save and except confessional statement of co-accused, there is no material against this petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent and he is in custody since 28.03.2025.

4. Learned APP however, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that on the disclosure made by this petitioner, sickle which was used in the commission of offence,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64624 of 2025(3) dt.11-11-2025 2/2 was recovered from a drainage.

5. Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of accusation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail in connection with Madanpur PS Case No. 119 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

6. However, as the petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2025, the trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U