Kedar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1898 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-427 Year-2022 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== Kedar Singh S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh @ Bhubneshwar Singh Resident Of Village- Dahiyawan Tola, Tari Chapra, Ps- Chapra Muffasil, Distt.- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ram Binod Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 308 of 2023 arising out of Chapra Muffasil P.S Case No. 427 of 2022 from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Saran at Chapra registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302 of the I.P.C and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 12.06.2022.
4. During course of the arguments learned counsel for the informant submitted a photo state copy of the certified copy
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1898 of 2025(2) dt.14-02-2025 2/2 of the 313 Cr.P.C of the accused and stated that the statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C and the trial is about to concluded in near future.
5. Earlier, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner were rejected by this court in Cr. Misc. No. 66948 of 2022 vide order dated 16.03.2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 56489 of 2024 vide order dated 18.10.2024. Considering the materials on record and the fact that trial is about to conclude in near future therefore, there is no need to call for status report of the trial of the present case, moreover, there is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
6. Hence, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected once again.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Mayank/- U T