Sanjeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29544 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1191 Year-2023 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar Son of Daroga Mahto R/o Village - Thathan Bujurg, P.S.- Hajipur Sadar, District - Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 702 of 2024 arising out of Sonepur P.S. Case No. 1191 of 2023, lodged on 17.12.2023 under Sections 341, 323, 379, 342, 364A, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 364A, 392, 412 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge 14th, Saran at Chapra.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 28.08.2024, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 23565 of 2024. He further submits that at the time of rejection of the bail application, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29544 of 2025(3) dt.01-08-2025 2/3 prayer for bail three months after framing of charge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge was framed on 17.08.2024, and more than three months have already lapsed. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 20.12.2023, and no purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. He also submits that the other accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that, from the Annexure- 3, which contains the evidence of one of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the testimony narrates the sequence of events, and the recording of this evidence is currently ongoing. He further submits that the Sessions Judge has acknowledged in the rejection order that during investigation, petitioner's name transpired on the basis of confessional statement of Sujit Kumar @ Nepali disclosing entire planning and conspiracy hatched by the accused persons including petitioner and the petitioner also confessed their guilt.
6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29544 of 2025(3) dt.01-08-2025 3/3 petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail three months from today.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U T