Dismissed¶¶18

Sunil Roy v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC13 Aug 2025CR. MISC./31229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected — murder charge under S. 302 read with S. 34 IPC — Mufassil/Munger Muffasil PS Case No. 225 of 2024 — informant's father Bahadur Rai died after lathi/ironrod assault dated 11.06.2024 — FIR dated 15.06.2024 — petitioner Sunil Roy — six criminal antecedents — FIR allegations supported by postmortem report — petitioner in jail since 28.11.2024 — trial court directed to expedite trial — Patna High Court, Shailendra Singh, J — decision date 13-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused; the only concession is a directive to the trial court to expedite the petitioner's trial (petitioner in custody since 28.11.2024). ¶¶18

Sunil Roy Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31229 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger

¶3

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

¶4

Sunil Roy, S/o - Rudal Roy @ Rabin Roy, R/o Village- Bhaiya Ram Roy Tola, Tika Rampur, P.S- Mufassil (Munger), Distt.- Munger.

¶5

The State of Bihar ===============	==========	... . Versus ... ... Oppo =====================	.. Petitioner/s site Party/s ========
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s	: Mr.	Manendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the State	: Mr.	Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
For the Informant ===============	: Mr. ==========	Uma Kant Mishra, Adv. =====================	========

¶6

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶7

3 13-08-2025

¶8

Heard Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel

¶9

for the petitioner, Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State and Mr. Uma Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

¶10

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 225 of 2024 dated 15.06.2024 registered for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

3. As per the prosecution’s story, on 11.06.2024 at about 5:00 P.M., the informant along with his father, namely Bahadur Rai, were going to the house of Mahesh Yadav to demand their money and in the meantime, the FIR named accused persons, including the petitioner, armed with lathis and ironrods, brutally assaulted both of them, due to which, the informant’s father succumbed to his injuries.

¶12

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31229 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 2/3

¶13

4. The main submissions advanced by petitioner’s counsel are that as per the allegation, this petitioner and coaccused persons, who are said to be four in number, brutally assaulted the informant and his father by means of ironrods and lathis and as per the informant, after the incident of assault, his father was initially treated at Sadar Hospital, Khagaria, from where he was referred to Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Mayaganj, Bhagalpur, and thereafter, the informant’s father was taken to private hospital, where he later died and his postmortem examination was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Munger, however, regarding the factum of informant’s father’s medical treatment at several hospitals as detailed in the FIR, neither any documentary proof is available nor did the investigating officer obtain any document relating to the medical treatment of the deceased from the said hospitals, which in itself falsifies the allegations levelled in the FIR. It is further submitted that as per the allegations, the informant was badly assaulted by the accused persons but he revealed before the investigating officer that he sustained very simple injury due to which he was not treated and this fact also falsifies the prosecution’s allegation, in fact there is series of cases in between both the parties due to which a false case has been

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31229 of 2025(3) dt.13-08-2025 3/3

¶15

prepared after the death of the informant’s father, in retaliation.

¶16

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and submits that the informant’s father was badly assaulted and murdered by the accused persons, including the petitioner, and his postmortem report is available in the case diary and further, the petitioner has criminal antecedents of six cases.

¶17

6. Learned APP for the State has also opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

¶18

7. Having considered the seriousness of the allegations appearing against this petitioner from the FIR, supported by the deceased’s postmortem report, and also taking into account the petitioner’s six criminal antecedents detailed in the petition, this Court is not inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, his bail prayer stands rejected.

¶19

8. As the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 28.11.2024, so, considering this aspect, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

¶20

(Shailendra Singh, J)

¶21

annu/- U T

Sunil Roy v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Roy v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Sahani Vs The State of Bihar

Kamlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramkumar Mahto @ Ramkumar @ Ram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Arun Mukhiya Vs The State of Bihar

Jitendra Ram Vs The State of Bihar