Mohamad Meraj @ Meraj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2588 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2007 Thana- SIWAN CITY District- Siwan ====================================================== Mohamad Meraj @ Meraj S/O Wahid Miya R/O Vill.- Jasauli (Murgiya Tola), P.S.- Pachrukhi, Dist.-Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 10-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2024 arising out of Siwan Town P.S. Case No. 101 of 2007 instituted for the offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

Prosecution case in short is that two unknown miscreants allegedly shot the informant while he was performing his duties.

4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 14-04-2024. Petitioner bears two criminal antecedent/s, as per disclosure made in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2588 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2025 2/3 paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion. Neither the informant nor other witnesses stated that petitioner was seen making firing or was present near the place of occurrence. Charge sheet is submitted in this case.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner was declared absconder before being arrested by the police. It is submitted that two witnesses have identified the petitioner, which fact finds mention at paragraph Nos. 50 & 51 of the case diary.

7.

A report was called for from the trial court, and it is reported that four out of twelve charge sheet witnesses have been examined.

8.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and specifically taking into account that the trial has commenced, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail is rejected. 9.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2588 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2025 3/3 unnecessary adjournments.

10.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of four months from today.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T