Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19959 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2024 Thana- KASHICHAK District- Nawada ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar Son of Late Dinesh Ravidas Resident of Village - Bauri, Police Station - Kashichak, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sudish Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Upendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Kashichak P.S. Case No. 161 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 23.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 18756 of 2025 which reads as follows:- Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kashichak P.S. Case No. 161 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the FIR, one Mohit is the assailant of the deceased.

4. During investigation, it has come that it is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19959 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 2/2 a planned murder and the petitioner has participated in the conspiracy to call the deceased at the Qabristan on the Toto of one Sanjay Rajak and there he was killed. The petitioner is accused in the conspiracy of killing the deceased. He is in jail since 12.11.2024.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact, this application is dismissed.

4. The case has been committed for trial. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

5. The Trial Judge is directed to frame the charges and proceed with the trial.

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.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T