Sudhanshu Kumar @ Dipansu Raj @ Sudhanshu Sharma @ Dipansu Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28169 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-681 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA KOTWALI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sudhanshu Kumar @ Dipansu Raj @ Sudhanshu Sharma @ Dipansu Raj, S/O Satendra Sharma @ Satyendra Sharma R/O Mohalla- New Area Pirpainti, P.S- Kotwali, Distt.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Gaya Kotwali P.S. Case No. 681 of 2023 for the offences registered under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3. This is the second bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. Earlier, the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected on 06.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 55063 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. no case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 30.03.3024. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28169 of 2025(3) dt.11-07-2025 2/2 submits that petitioner shall co-operate in the trial. Learned counsel further submits that there is no progress in trial.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the regular bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected on merit vide order dated 06.09.2024 and no fresh ground is made out for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by this Court, earlier the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected on merit and further no fresh ground is made out for entertaining the bail petition of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the bail petition of the petitioner is dismissed.

7. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if there is no progress of trial. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.) rakhi U T