Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20730/2026dismissed

Arjun Sah @ Arjuna Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-01Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20730 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Arjun Sah @ Arjuna Sah S/o- Rambilash Sah Village- Makkhachak PSBakhri Dist-Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bakhri P.S. Case No. 393 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 103, 61(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution, the petitioner and others are alleged to have assaulted the deceased brutally, causing the death of the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody since 01.02.2026 and claims clean antecedent. He further submits that the post-mortem report doesn't support the prosecution case as the deceased had suffered only two injuries out of which one is bruise and one is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20730 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 2/2 lacerated injury.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature. It is contended that there exists prima facie material against the petitioner indicating his involvement in the commission of the offence.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has assaulted the victim resulting in his death, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner for the present.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

8. 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.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T