Dismissed¶20

Sudama Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Dec 2025CR. MISC./18477/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court Cr. Misc. No. 18477 of 2025 (decided 05-12-2025, Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava): prayer for bail of Sudama Paswan rejected at this stage owing to advance stage of trial (7 of 9 prosecution witnesses examined); charges under Sections 323, 341, 324, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act; PS Case No. 948/2022, Sherghati, Gaya; trial court directed to finish trial preferably within three months, failing which petitioner may renew bail prayer; co-accused Uday Paswan bailed earlier (Cr. Misc. No. 13364 of 2023, order dt. 23.06.2023); petitioner in custody since 05.04.2023.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the advance stage of the trial, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. ¶20

Sudama Paswan Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 05.04.2023 in PS Case No. 948 of 2022 (offences under Sections 323, 341, 324, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act) with the trial at an advanced stage, should be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the advance stage of the trial, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Trial court directed not to grant unnecessary adjournments and to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within three months; failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected at advanced stage of trial — Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18477 of 2025 (order dated 05-12-2025, Hon'ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava). Petitioner Sudama Paswan, accused in PS Case No. 948 of 2022, P.S. Sherghati, District Gaya, charged under Sections 323, 341, 324, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sought bail; the FIR alleges that during Durga Puja idol immersion he and one other accused assaulted the informant's father with a sharp object, who died during treatment. Counsel for the petitioner pleaded false implication amid a mob, absence of a specific allegation of inflicting the knife blow, delay in lodging the FIR (occurrence 09.10.2022, FIR 12.10.2022), bail already granted to co-accused Uday Paswan on 23.06.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 13364 of 2023, absence of criminal antecedents, and custody since 05.04.2023; counsel for the informant showed the trial at its fag end with seven of nine prosecution witnesses examined and the doctor dead. Considering the advance stage of the trial, the Court declined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and rejected the prayer at this stage, but directed the trial court not to grant unnecessary adjournments and to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within three months, failing which the petitioner would be free to renew his bail prayer; presence of the SHO, Sherghati, was dispensed with.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18477 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-948 Year-2022 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Sudama Paswan Son of Kailash Paswan R/o Village - Chitwan Kala, P.S.Sherghati, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶10

9 05-12-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶12

counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The SHO of Sherghati police station, Gaya is also present.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶14

The allegation in the first information report is that

¶15

on account of idol immersion during Durga Puja, the petitioner along with one another accused assaulted the father of the informant with a sharp object due to which he died during treatment.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be apparent from the first information report that a dispute had taken place during the idol immersion where there

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18477 of 2025(9) dt.05-12-2025 2/3

¶18

was a mob of people and the petitioner has been falsely implicated on account of some earlier dispute. It is further submitted that there is no specific allegation of inflicting the knife blow against the petitioner and for an occurrence which had taken place on 09.10.2022, the FIR came to be lodged after a delay on 12.10.2022. It has also been submitted that one of the co-accused Uday Paswan has already been granted bail vide order dated 23.06.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 13364 of 2023 and the petitioner having no criminal antecedent is in custody since 05.04.2023.

¶19

Learned counsel for the informant informs this Court and as would be evident from the records of the case that the trial of the case is at the fag end and out of nine prosecution witnesses, seven have already been examined and since the doctor is dead, there is only one witness to be examined and the SHO who is present in person has informed that he would be deposing on the next date i.e. on 15^th December, 2025.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the advance stage of the trial, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18477 of 2025(9) dt.05-12-2025 3/3

¶22

However, it is directed that the learned court concerned would not grant any unnecessary adjournment and would make all efforts towards concluding the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of three months, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

¶23

The presence of the SHO, Sherghati is

¶24

dispensed with.

¶25

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶26

devendra/-

¶27

U T

Sudama Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudama Paswan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Kumar @ Monu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Akhilesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhola Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Sujit Kumar Rai @ Sujit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Mandal @ Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sunil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar