Pravesh Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85895 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2022 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Pravesh Ram son of Late Laxmi Ram Village -Parmanandpur Ward no 11 PSMurliganj District -Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate Ms. Bhaghyashree Raj, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Uday Prasad Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 04 of 2024, arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case No. 253 of 2022 for the offences registered under Sections 147, 341, 307, 302, 120(B), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3. This is the second regular bail petition of the petitioner. Earlier his regular bail petition was dismissed on merit by this Court on 08.02.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.03.2023 facing trial. He further submits that there is case and counter case between the parties. Postmortem report of the deceased does not support the version of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85895 of 2024(5) dt.09-05-2025 2/2 the informant as alleged in the F.I.R. He lastly submits that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the trial. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.

5. It appears from the earlier order dated 08.02.2024 that it was stated that the petitioner has clean antecedent, however, in the present application it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that he has one criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant submit that no fresh ground has been made out by the petitioner for grant of regular bail. Most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and considering that no fresh ground is made out by the petitioner for consideration of bail and also considering that most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

8. The Trial Court is expected to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) rakhi/- U T