The court declined bail due to the seriousness of allegations involving weapons and long absconding duration, emphasizing the need for trial expediency.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Khusrupur P.S. Case no.98 of 2003, registered under sections 307, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act .

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that Palu Singh and the petitioner herein along with two other named accused came variously armed. Ramfal Singh started to fire upon the informant. The shot fired by Palu Singh with his rifle hit the informant below his waist while the second shot fired by the petitioner missed the informant’s head. It is stated that the informant fell unconscious. The accused persons went away firing and giving threats.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It was on the petitioner surrendering in another case of the year 2003 that he was remanded in the present case. Even as per the allegations in the FIR, the firing resorted to by the petitioner did not hit the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 24.6.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Learned counsel submits that co-accused brother of the petitioner namely Palu Singh has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.3.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. no.9237 of 2010.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court with respect to the stage of the case/trial. As per the report contained in letter dated 5.12.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, I/C Court no.12, Patna City, two of the four accused have passed away during pendency of the case. Now the records of the case are running for two accused ie the petitioner herein and Palu Singh. The case is pending for commitment and the next date fixed in the case was 11.12.2025.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, there being allegation against the petitioner of having resorted to firing on the informant and especially the petitioner having absconded for 22 years in a case of the year 2003 till he was remanded in the present case on 24.6.2025, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.