Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55917/2025bail rejected

Nitish Kanaujiya v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-07Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55917 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Nitish Kanaujiya S/O Santosh Kumar Kanaujiya R/O Village- Salarpur, P.S.- Karanda, Distt.- Gajipur (UP) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69697 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sambhu Kumar son of Jitendra Yadav @ Jitendra singh Resident of VillageCharvani, Ps- Jagdishpur, Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 55917 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sujeet Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Renu Kumari (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 69697 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both these bail petitions have arises out of the same police station case number, hence they are being heard together and decided by a common order.

3. Petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 73 of 2025 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 140(3)/ 140(i)/ 103(i)/ 238/ 318(4)/338/336(3)/61(2)/3(5) of the B.N.S. Act read with section 66(B), 66(C), 66(D) of the I.T. Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55917 of 2025(4) dt.07-11-2025 2/2

4. As per prosecution story, the informant alleged that these petitioners along with other co-accused persons killed the son of the informant due to money dispute.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of this petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Shambhu Kumar wherein he stated that this petitioner facilitated the murder of the deceased. It is alleged that this petitioner caught leg of the deceased and thereafter Sambhu Kumar pressed his neck and killed him. Petitioners claims clean antecedent. Petitioners are in custody since 01.03.2025 and 28.02.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submitted that these petitioners were involved in the murder of the informant's son due to money dispute.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also nature of accusation against these petitioners, their prayer for regular bail stands rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/- U T