Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75054/2025bail rejected

Rahul Kumar @ Sahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-13Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75054 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar ====================================================== Rahul Kumar @ Sahul Kumar Son of Shri Sunil Singh @ Shri Sunil Kumar Singh Resident of Kheriya Nishad Tola, P.S. - Kuresela, District - Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Kursela P. S. Case No. 55 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 140(3) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 08.03.2025, the informant and Ramu Mandal went to village- Kursela to attend the shradh bhoj at the house of one Munna Mandal. After attending the shradh bhoj, the daughter of the informant was accompanied by Ramu Mandal on a bike bearing Reg. No. BR43Z4714 for hiring a toto (e-rickshaw). Since then, Ramu Mandal has not returned and his mobile phone was also found switched off.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75054 of 2025(2) dt.13-11-2025 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. Petitioner claims clean antecedent and is in custody since 10.03.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the stolen bike was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and upon interrogation the petitioner confessed to have murdered Ramu Mandal, hence, he does not deserve the liberty of bail.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

7. However, since petitioner is in custody since 10.03.2025, Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

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