Subhash Choubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2113 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2025 Thana- DEHRI TOWN District- Rohtas ====================================================== Subhash Choubey, Son of Late Hridyanand Choubey, Resident of Village - Bahera, P.S. Karagahar, District - Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dehari (Nagar) P.S. Case No. 368 of 2025 dated 08.08.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that a quarrel took place between him and the Mahanth of the temple on account of some money for worshiping and the Mahanth of the temple was abused and assaulted by the petitioner leading to his death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that it is apparent from the post-mortem report that only one injury was found on the head of the deceased and there is no repetition of assault on the head. The petitioner is in custody since 27.09.2025, having no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2113 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026 2/2

5. Learned A.P.P for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that Mahanth of the temple was abused and assaulted by the petitioner due to which he sustained injury which resulted into his death.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected.

8. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably, within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment. If the trial is not concluded within nine months, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his bail application after nine months.

9. This application stands dismissed.

(Khatim Reza, J) prabhat/- U T