Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Anshu @ Ansh Singh @ Anshu Singh @ Tusar Raman @ Tushar Kumar RamanversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Bail was denied as the accused's serious charges and extensive criminal antecedents outweighed any consideration for release, and no new grounds were presented.

Summary

The petitioner, Anshu Singh, was arrested in March 2022 in connection with a case involving murder (IPC s.302), criminal conspiracy (IPC s.120B) and common intention (IPC s.34), as well as an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He sought regular bail, having been in judicial custody for over four years, and argued that the trial was far from conclusion. The State opposed bail, noting that all prosecution witnesses had been examined and the trial was on the verge of hearing defence evidence. The court observed that the petitioner had fifteen to sixteen prior criminal antecedents of a similar nature and that the gravity of the offences warranted continued detention. Since no new ground was raised and the trial was nearing its end, the court rejected the bail application and directed the lower court to expedite the trial. The order reaffirmed the earlier bail denial dated 30.08.2024.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to an accused charged with murder, conspiracy and arms offences having multiple prior criminal antecedents
  • Whether the pending stage of trial and lack of new grounds justify a fresh bail order

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • murder
  • conspiracy
  • arms offence
  • criminal antecedents
  • trial delay
  • judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20149 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2021 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar
                 ======================================================
                 Anshu @ Ansh Singh @ Anshu Singh @ Tusar Raman @ Tushar Kumar
                 Raman Son of Amit Dev @ Amit Deo @ Amit Dev Singh@ Amitedav Singh
                 R/o Villlage - Babhangama, P.S. - Riga, Dist. - Sitamarhi.

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   03-04-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                           2.       The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T.

                   No. 37 of 2022, arising out of Piprahi P.S. Case No. 228 of

                   2021 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 120(B) &

                   34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                           3.       This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.

                   The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail

                   which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order

                   dated 30.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35256 of 2024, taking

                   into account the nature and gravity of offence as also there being

                   fifteen criminal antecedents of similar nature of offences.

                           4.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20149 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 11.03.2022

                     without any rhymes or reason, having sixteen (16) criminal

                     antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                     there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near

                     future, hence, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

                             6.      Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     grant of bail. It is submitted that all the prosecution witnesses

                     have been examined and the case is fixed for defence evidence,

                     which is evident from perusal of the impugned order.

                             7.      There is no new ground to consider the bail petition

                     of the petitioner. It appears that the trial is going on and is on the

                     verge of its conclusion.

                             8.      In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the

                     petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to

                     expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously.



                                                                 (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.