Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61958 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Son of Late Kashi Prasad, Resident of Mela Road, Ward No.- 13, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Madhubala Verma, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Waliur Rahman, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-11-2025 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. The informant is represented through Mr. Waliur Rahman, learned Advocate.
2. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the petitioner, as earlier his prayer for bail was turned down by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.80234 of 2024 vide order dated 31.01.2025, taking into consideration the specific nature of accusation and the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, who have supported the prosecution case disclosing the active participation of the petitioner in the murderous attack of the two sons of the informant, coupled with
2/4 criminal antecedent.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner taking this Court through the earlier order dated 31.01.2025 has fairly contended that admittedly the prayer of the petitioner was rejected on merit(s) and, as such, he is not pressing the same on merit(s); however, this fact cannot be ignored that on the alleged date of occurrence, the statement of various witnesses, including Raju Kumar, Binod Kumar, Ram Karan Das and Sangeeta Devi were recorded, who have specifically named the petitioner that he along with others were dragging the sons of the informant, who were completely injured and in unconscious state and took them in the black Harrier car. The persons who were present along with the petitioner, including Rajan Kumar Rai @ Rajan Kumar Yadav, whose prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.
60380 of 2024 and later on reconsidered by this Court and extended the privilege of regular bail in Cr. Misc. 42879 of 2025 vide order dated 01.08.2025. The case of the petitioner is said to be identical to that of Rajan Kumar Ray. It is also contended that now the petitioner has been incarcerated in judicial custody for over a period of one year six months and the prosecution witnesses have been summoned.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
3/4 and the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that during the course of investigation, it has come that the entire case is revolving around the petitioner and it is he, who had taken the sons of the informant through his black Harrier car and later on their dead body were recovered, besides the fact that earlier the prayer of the petitioner was considered on merit(s) and on being found specific accusation of active participation in kidnapping and causing death of the sons of the informant, his prayer for bail was turned down.
5. Learned Advocate for the informant further contended that the matter has further referred to the Criminal Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna for scientific examination. The petitioner bears five criminal antecedent and all of them concerned with heinous offences.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the materials available on record as also the fact that the prayer of the petitioner had already been rejected on merit(s) and there is no cogent and new circumstances for renewal of the prayer for bail, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected.
7. It is expected that the learned Trial Court shall take
4/4 all sincere efforts to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
(Harish Kumar, J) rohit/- U