IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33796 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-344 Year-2025 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Suraj kumar @ Suraj Sahani S/o Upendra Sahani R/o Vill. - Rampur Bhoriyahi @ Sadhanpura, P.S. - Kathaiya, Dist. - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL ORDER 3 24-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Paroo (Paru) P.S. Case No. 344 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 132, 121(1), 324(4), 3(5) of the B.N.S., Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27, and 35 of the Arms Act. 3. The allegation is that one loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner carries the antecedent of fourteen cases. Considering the fact that he is a threat to society, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33796 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026 2/2 Babu, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, has observed in para 30 as follows: “We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused.” 5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 6. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner. (Ansul, J) abhishekkr/- U T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33796 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-344 Year-2025 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Suraj kumar @ Suraj Sahani S/o Upendra Sahani R/o Vill. - Rampur Bhoriyahi @ Sadhanpura, P.S. - Kathaiya, Dist. - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nachiketa Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL ORDER 3 24-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Paroo (Paru) P.S. Case No. 344 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 132, 121(1), 324(4), 3(5) of the B.N.S., Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27, and 35 of the Arms Act. 3. The allegation is that one loaded country-made pistol was recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner carries the antecedent of fourteen cases. Considering the fact that he is a threat to society, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33796 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026 2/2 Babu, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446, has observed in para 30 as follows: “We do not deny for a moment that period of custody is a relevant factor but simultaneously the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents are also to be weighed. They are to be weighed in the scale of collective cry and desire. The societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition of individual liberty. Regard being had to the said parameter we are inclined to think that the social concern in the case at hand deserves to be given priority over lifting the restriction of liberty of the accused.” 5. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. 6. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner. (Ansul, J) abhishekkr/- U T