Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23628/2026bail rejected

Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-15Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23628 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2022 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju, Male, aged about 30 years, Son of Mahendra Singh, Resident of Sabazpura, P.S.- Dulhin Bazaar, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhumay Madhup, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1066 of 2022 arising out of Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 09 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons is that they opened fired upon the chest of the informant's husband, due to which, he shot dead on the spot.

4. This is the fifth attempt for regular bail of the petitioner. Earlier the prayer for bail of this petitioner was fourth rejected by a this Court and a Bench of this Court passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 27293 of 2023, 28086 of 2024, 24112 of 2025 and 53011 of 2025 vide orders dated 22.08.2023, 21.06.2024,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23628 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026 2/2 01.05.2025 and 12.09.2025, respectively.

5. From perusal of the report of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-V, Danapur Patna dated 18.04.2026 vide letter no. 101 of 2026, it appears that four witnesses has been examined in this case and the case is likely to be concluded within four months and petitioner is the main assailants of this case, so there is no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected.

7. However, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial expeditiously.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.

U T