Sanoj Kumar @ Bhura @ Bhuttu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80585 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2024 Thana- DIDARGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Sanoj Kumar @ Bhura @ Bhuttu S/o Late Kailash Yadav @ Kailash Singh R/o Vill.- Gulamahiya Bagh, P.S. - Didarganj, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :
Ms. Rita Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2.
This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No.161 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently, section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added. 3.
Earlier, the bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.76038 of 2024. The aforesaid order dated 22.01.2025 reads as under:- "Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Didarganj P.S. Case No. 161 of 2024, registered for the offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
3. As per prosecution case, the informant's son died in the river by drowning. During
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80585 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 investigation it has come that it is the petitioner who has killed the deceased by pushing him in the river.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2024. There is delay of 18 days in lodging the F.I.R. Petitioner has three criminal antecedents and in three cases he is on bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, this application is dismissed."
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial the charges have been framed and the prosecution will examine the witnesses.
5.
Considering the aforesaid submission, I am not inclined to review my earlier order dated 22.01.2025. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T