Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32544/2025dismissed

Shambhu Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-10Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32544 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2022 Thana- MOHAMMADPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Shambhu Sahani S/o Late Saryug Sahani R/o vill - Dhekaha, Teliya Tola, P.s. - Kesariya, Distt.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Kaushlendra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 704 of 2024 arising out of Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 246 of 2022 registered for the offence under Sections 364, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19379 of 2024 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mohammadpur P.S. Case No. 246 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner and other accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32544 of 2025(5) dt.10-02-2026 2/2 persons are said to have killed the deceased after the deceased, who was a Chowkidar, objected to their illegal acts in the river. The petitioner is the main accused in the case.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

5. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

7. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial.

8. If the trial is delayed, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

3. It has very fairly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges have been framed in this case and the trial has started.

4. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, this court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U