Patna High Court – Orders
Gautam Singh @ Rahul Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82145 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2023 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Gautam Singh @ Rahul Singh Son of Luro Singh Resident of Village - Karna,
P.S.- Parbatta, District - Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Braj Bhusan Poddar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
7 18-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of
regular bail in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case no.86 of 2023
registered under sections 302, 323, 325, 341, 120B and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the accused persons named in the FIR including the
petitioner herein came variously armed with country made
pistol, lathi, danda etc. On the orders of Sita Devi, it is stated
that Luro Singh fired hitting the informant’s wife in her face.
The second shot was fired by this petitioner which hit the
informant’s wife in her chest and she died on the spot. On hulla
being raised, the accused persons escaped.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82145 of 2025(7) dt.18-03-2026
2/2
submits that the earlier application for bail of the petitioner was
rejected vide order dated 15.4.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. no.2862 of
2025. The petitioner is in custody since 31.10.2023 and charge
has been framed in the learned trial Court on 11.3.2026. The
petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the trial and to abide by
any conditions which may be laid by this Court for his release
on bail.
5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for
the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted
by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner is the
assailant of the deceased. Charge has been framed in the learned
trial Court and the prosecution is ready to produce the witnesses
on day to day basis.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner of
having fired upon the wife of the informant causing firearm
injury in her chest leading to her death, the Court is not inclined
to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
