Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70360/2025dismissed

Bablu Sah v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70360 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1234 Year-2023 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Bablu Sah S/O Late Kapildev Sah Resident of Village-Sukhasan, Ward No.4, P.S.-Singheshwar, District-Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.) P.S. Case No. 1234 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 28.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25421 of 2024 along with Cr. Misc. No. 27496 of 2024 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Madhepura (O.P. Bharahi) P.S. Case No. 1234 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70360 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2

3. It is a case of triple murder. During investigation, materials have come to connect these petitioners with the crime. The petitioners are in jail since 22.12.2023.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Accordingly, these applications for regular bail are rejected.

6. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioners and conclude the same at the earliest.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the trial all witnesses have been examined.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T