Rupesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68111 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- SRIPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Rupesh Kumar Singh S/o Manager Singh R/o vill- Niyamat Guriyav, P.S.- Kateya, District-Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Satyendra Rai For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-11-2025 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 103(1), 3(5) 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 his confessional statement. Save and except confessional statement, there is no material against this petitioner. Petitioner claims clean antecedent and he is in custody since 12.04.2025.
4. Learned APP however, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the in para 32 of the case diary it has come that petitioner was in love affair with the daughter of informant and he used to talk with her on mobile phone, which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68111 of 2025(3) dt.12-11-2025 2/2 was opposed by the husband of informant (deceased), hence, petitioner along with other accused persons killed the deceased. At the behest of this petitioner, the Gadasi which was used in the commission of offence was recovered by the police.
5. Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of accusation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail in connection with Shripur PS Case No. 74 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gopalganj. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
6. However, as the petitioner is in custody since 12.04.2025, 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