IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59820 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2025 Thana- MESKAUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Chandradev Chaudhary S/o Late Gaya Chaudhary R/o Village - Pawai, P.S - Meskaur, District - Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 07-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.03.2025 at about 6 PM, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner, engaged in a scuffle with the informant and this petitioner, assaulted one Sarjug Chaudhary with khanti and gadasa due to which he 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. Moreover, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59820 of 2025(3) dt.07-11-2025 2/2 charge-sheet has already been submitted and petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2025. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedents. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he assaulted Sarjug Chaudhary with khanti and gadasa due to which he died. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence and materials that have surfaced during course of investigation, the prayer for grant bail of to the petitioner is rejected. 7. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2025, 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. shashank/- (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U T