Danish Kha @ Danish KhanversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4900 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-69 Year-2025 Thana- BIHRA District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Danish Kha @ Danish Khan S/o Sohrab Kha R/o Mohanpur, ward no. 10,
                 P.O. - Mohanpur, P.s.- Navhatta, Distt.- Saharsa

                                                                                   ... ... Appellant/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar Bihar
           2.    Chulhai Paswan S/o Late Rameshwar Paswan R/o vill - Bela Bagraulli,
                 Panchayat Barsher ward no. 11, P.S.- Bihra, Distt.- Saharsa

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :        Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh No. I
                 For the Respondent/s    :        Mr.Usha Kumari 1
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   07-07-2026                  Heard the parties.

                               2. This appeal has been preferred against the order

                   dated 3.11.2025 passed by the learned Court of Additional

                   Sessions Judge-1st cum-SC/ST Exclusive Special Judge,

                   Saharsa in Special Case No. 36 of 2025 arising out of Bihara

                   P.S. Case No. 69 of 2025 registered for the offence under

                   Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS, under

                   Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3(2)(v) of the

                   SC/ST Act.

                               3. As per the prosecution case, around ten persons are

                   said to have killed the deceased.

                               4. The appellant is in custody since 30.04.2025.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4900 of 2025(4) dt.07-07-2026
                                             2/3




                       5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

          appellant that the appellant is not named in the FIR and except

          for his own confessional statement, there is no material to

          connect him with the alleged offence.

                       6. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Jharkhandi

          Upadhyay has opposed the application of the petitioner and has

          taken this Court to the case diary to show that materials have

          come against the appellant to connect him with the crime.

                       7. I have heard and considered the submissions of the

          parties and have also perused the case diary.

                       8. During investigation, it has come that the killing of

          the deceased was planned by the accused persons and pursuant

          to that one Saurav Kumar got two pistols and has given the

          same to one Shivi and the petitioner. Thereafter, Shivi and the

          petitioner followed the deceased, whose location was being

          provided by other co-accused and they stopped the deceased and

          killed him.

                       9. The appellant is one of the assailants of the

          deceased and in the scientific investigation also, the mobile

          phone location of the appellant has been found on the spot and

          he has also been found to be talking to the other co-accused

          before commission of the crime. He has also deposited Rs.
          Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4900 of 2025(4) dt.07-07-2026
                                                       3/3




                    40,000/- in the bank account of his mother which was taken by

                    him from one Rahul, who has given the supari to the appellant

                    for killing the deceased.

                                 10. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not

                    inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

                                 11. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.



                                                          (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-

U