Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6272/2026dismissed

Md. Sarfaraj @ Md.Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Md. Sarfarj v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-12Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6272 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2022 Thana- BALRAMPUR District- Katihar ====================================================== Md. Sarfaraj @ Md.Sarfaraj Ahmad @ Md. Sarfarj Son of Md. Siddique @ Siddik Resident Of Village- Kerora Police Station- Balrampur DistrictKatihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Balrampur P.S.Case No. 219 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.28210 of 2025, which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Balrampur P.S.Case No.219 of 2022 registered for the offence

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6272 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2 under section 302,120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are said to have fired indiscriminately at the brother of the informant due to which he died.

4. The petitioner is in jail since 04.11.2024.

5. Considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioenr.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has been framed. It is further submits that out of 8 witnesses, 2 witnesses have been examined.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) N.K/- U T