Sanjeev Kumar Chaupal @ Sanjeev Chaupal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5961 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-456 Year-2022 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar Chaupal @ Sanjeev Chaupal S/o- Balram Sharma @ Balram Chaupal Resident of Village- Baluaha Ward No 07, PS and DistrictMadhepura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-03-2025 Heard Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 13.06.2022 in connection with Madhepura (Parmanandpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 456 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 19.05.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected twice vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26994 of 2023 and vide order dated 09.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2155 of 2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5961 of 2025(4) dt.05-03-2025 2/3 petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the allegation in the F.I.R, the petitioner has fired upon the husband of the informant due to which he has received injury which resulted into his death. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2022 and the trial is not in progress.
5. Vide order dated 14.02.2025 a report was called with regard to the present stage of trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 27.02.2025 reveals that all the witnesses have been examined in the present case and arguments have also been concluded and the case is fixed on 04.03.2025 for judgment.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as report of the learned Trial Court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Madhepura (Parmanandpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 456 of 2022 pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st cum Special Judge, Madhepura.
8. Prayer is refused.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5961 of 2025(4) dt.05-03-2025 3/3
9. Howeve, learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T