Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9823/2026dismissed

Sangeeta Kumari @ Sangita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9823 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-591 Year-2024 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Sangeeta Kumari @ Sangita Kumari Wife of Santosh Kumar God @ Gond Resident of Village- Baraintha, P.O.- Bamhaur Khas, Bhagirathpur, P.S.- Mohaniya, District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kumar Vikram, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Mohaniya P.S. Case No. 591 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 140(3), 103, 61(2) and 238 of the B.N.S. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2479 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2 . This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Mohaniya P.S. Case No.591 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under section 140(3), 103, 612(2) and 238 of the B.N.S. 2023. 3 . On the confession of the petitioner, the dead- body of the deceased and other articles have been recovered by the Police. The petitioner is alleged to have involved in the crime. He is in custody since 15.09.2024. 4 . Considering the aforesaid facts, I

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9823 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2 am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has clean antecedent and he is custody since 15.09.2024. Learned counsel further submits that till now charges have not been framed.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again with direction to the concerned court below to expedite the trial and frame the charges at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T