Ajay Pandey @ Ajay Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28682 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2024 Thana- SIKRAUL District- Buxar ====================================================== Ajay Pandey @ Ajay Kumar Pandey Son of Late Rameshwar Pandey R/o Village - Pandeypur, P.S.- Sikraul, District - Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. Application for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Sikraul P.S. Case No. 45 of 2024, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was turned down by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 49007 of 2024, taking into consideration the specific nature of accusation against the petitioner that he gave a fatal shot upon the deceased and further confessed his involvement in the crime.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28682 of 2025(3) dt.18-07-2025 2/2 co-accused person, against whom there is allegation that he had apprehended the deceased, whereupon this petitioner has shot fire, has been extended the privilege of bail by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 11512 of 2025 vide order dated 04.04.2025, moreover, the petitioner has absolutely fair antecedent.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that it is the petitioner who has given the fatal blow and, as such, does not deserve any leniency.

6. Considering the specific nature of accusation and the fact that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit and, there is no cogent reason and subsequent development, which requires fresh consideration, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. However, the learned trial Court shall take all endeavours to conclude the trial, as early as possible. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not concluded. (Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U T