Vijay Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70779 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2025 Thana- SARMERA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Vijay Das S/O Late Chaudhary Das R/O Village- Govachak, P.S- Sarmera, Dist- Nalanda, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-12-2025 Heard Mr. Abhishek Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, informant believes that all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner, committed murder of his mother, namely Kalwa Devi. It is alleged that prior to the occurrence, this petitioner had a quarrel with the deceased.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70779 of 2025(4) dt.19-12-2025 2/3

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and petitioner has been made accused only on suspicion. Moreover, chargesheet has already been submitted and petitioner is in custody since 03.07.2025.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.. During investigation, one of the witness, namely Ranj Devi, who claims to be eye witness to the occurrence, has alleged that this petitioner was seen committing maar-peet with the deceased on the date of occurrence.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence and materials that have surfaced during investigation, the prayer for grant bail of to the petitioners is rejected.

7. However, considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 03.07.2025, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70779 of 2025(4) dt.19-12-2025 3/3 of this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T