Patna High Court
Arjun Sah @ Arjun RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Arjun Sah applied for anticipatory bail in a murder case (IPC sections 302 and 34) where he is alleged to have participated in the killing of the informant's brother. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated, had no motive, was not present at the scene, and had no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, noting the petitioner is named in the FIR. The Court examined the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case. Concluding that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail, the Court rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the murder case
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13768 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2023 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Arjun Sah @ Arjun Ram Son of Subhash Sah @ Suresh Sah Resident of
Village - Kritpura, P.S.- Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 204 of 2023, instituted for the
offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that petitioner along
with other co-accused committed murder of brother of the
informant by hanging with iron pipe in the house.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is
the co-villager of the informant and there is no motive to kill the
deceased. It is further submitted that at the time of occurrence,
petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The dead
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13768 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
body of the brother of informant was recovered from the house
of co-accused Satyadev Ram. There is no eye-witness of the
occurrence. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. The
petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, in my view, this is
not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…