Sunaina Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86903 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2025 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Sunaina Devi W/o- Naresh Yadav R/v- Baheradih Ps- Barachatti Dist- Gaya 2.

Naresh Yadav S/o- Late Ramdeo Yadav R/v- Baheradih Ps- Barachatti DistGaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that these petitioners, along with co-accused Sunil Yadav, assaulted father of informant due to which, father of informant died.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive. Moreover, charge-sheet has already been submitted and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86903 of 2025(2) dt.17-12-2025 2/2 Petitioner No. 1 is in custody since 05.07.2025 and Petitioner No. 2 is in custody since 07.08.2025. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with co-accused Sunil Yadav, committed murder of father of informant.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation, fact that petitioners are one of the assailant of the deceased and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant bail of to the petitioners is rejected.

7. However, considering the fact that Petitioner No. 1 is in custody since 05.07.2025 and Petitioner No. 2 is in custody since 07.08.2025, 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 of this order. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T