Patna High Court

Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Ajay Pandey @ Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 8 July 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

Regular bail was denied because the petitioner willfully defied Supreme Court orders, absconded for a year, and the trial was at its fag end, rendering bail inappropriate.

Summary

Ajay Kumar Pandey was charged with murder, robbery and related offences under the IPC and the Arms Act. He has been in custody intermittently since November 2018, with a recent stint beginning February 2025 after evading a Supreme Court order to surrender. The petitioner filed multiple bail applications, each of which was either set aside by the Supreme Court or rejected by the Patna High Court, citing his failure to disclose prior cases and his absconding. The present petition sought regular bail on the grounds of prolonged detention and the trial’s slow progress, arguing a violation of his right to a speedy trial. The Court observed that the trial was at its fag end, most prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the petitioner had willfully defied higher‑court orders, making bail inappropriate. Consequently, the petition for regular bail was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the prolonged custody and the trial being at its fag end.
Whether the petitioner’s conduct of absconding and not complying with Supreme Court directions bars bail.
Whether the pending examination of certain witnesses warrants bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Criminal Procedure Code — s. 311
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 363, 364

Subjects

regular bail
trial at fag end
speedy trial
Article 21
absconding
murder
IPC
Arms Act
Criminal Procedure Code

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25701 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2018 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Ajay Pandey @ Ajay Kumar Son of Late Sita
Ram Pandey Resident of Village - Ram Bagh Chouri, P.S. - Mithanpura,
District – Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate
Mrs.Anita Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Chitrangda Mustafa, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER

9 08-07-2026 Heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the

State duly assisted by Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The accused/petitioner, who is not named in the

FIR, is in custody since 05.11.2018 to 08.02.2019 and from

19.02.2025, i.e. total period of one year seven months and

twenty one days, seeks regular bail in connection with Karja

P.S. Case No. 199 of 2018 (Sessions Trial No. 452/2024)

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364

and added sections 302, 120(B) & 201 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
2/13

Allegation against the petitioner

3. Petitioner alleged to involve in committing murder

of son of the informant as during investigation petitioner, soon

before the death of son of the informant was repeatedly

contacted from mobile no. 7361907855 with deceased which

was alleged to be in use of petitioner/accused.

Brief History of earlier Bail Petition preferred by
the accused/petitioner

4. As several multiple efforts has been made by this

petitioner with prayer of bail before this Court and Hon'ble

Supreme Court, therefore, it would be apposite here to

mention all such previous proceedings for sake of clarity and

convenience:

(i) After arrest in the present case, petitioner preferred

first petition of regular bail to this Court through Cr. Misc.

No. 3386/2019, which was disposed on 08.02.2019, where

petitioner was granted regular bail with certain conditions

imposed by this Court, as such petitioner remained in custody

total of about three months and three days, since 05.11.2018.

In this petition, petitioner mentioned his total criminal

antecedent as three (3);

(ii) Aggrieved with aforesaid order, first informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
3/13

approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Criminal

Appeal No. 1755 of 2019 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.

6793 of 2019], wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order

dated 25.11.2019, set-aside the order dated 08.02.2019, as

mentioned aforesaid, for the reason that petitioner did not

disclosed his true criminal antecedents as he was involved in

five (5) criminal cases. A request was made to this High Court

to decide the bail application afresh after hearing the

complainant;

(iii) After the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, petitioner preferred second bail petition

before this Court, which was registered as Cr. Misc. No. 3386

of 2019, wherein vide its order dated 05.01.2022, one of the

learned coordinate Bench of this Court, considering the

mistake as bonafide, allowed this petitioner to remain on bail

but while authoring order of bail, it was observed that

petitioner remains in custody total of two years and ten

months i.e. from 05.11.2018 to 24.09.2021;

(iv) The first informant again challenged the aforesaid

order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Criminal

Appeal No. 1679 of 2022 [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No. 5600 of 2022], raising submission that the custody period
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
4/13

was recorded wrongly as this petitioner has remained in

custody for about three months only. Taking note of the

aforesaid mistake, Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated

26.09.2022 again set-aside the impugned order dated

05.01.2022 as passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. Cr. Misc.

No. 3386 of 2019, and remanded the case for a fresh

consideration of bail petition of the petitioner on the basis of

correct facts with request to consider all contentions that may

be raised on behalf of the State as well as complainant,

however, petitioner was allowed to continue on interim

regular bail till the High Court decides his bail application

afresh;

(v) This time, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High

Court of Judicature at Patna was requested to place this matter

before different Bench;

(vi) It is how this matter was assigned to this Court by

the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and thereafter petitioner filed

bail petition, which was registered as Cr. Misc. No.

3386/2019. Considering all such contentions and taking note

of submission of the petitioner and first informant afresh, this

Court rejected the prayer of bail of the petitioner vide its order

dated 04.05.2023;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
5/13

(vii) Now, the aforesaid order was challenged by the

accused/petitioner before Hon'ble Supreme Court through

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6907 of 2023, wherein

vide order dated 29.02.2024, the Hon'ble Apex Court vacated

the interim protection granted to the petitioner and directed

him to surrender forthwith before the learned trial court with

liberty to apply afresh after the deposition of the family

members of the victim is complete, and also directed the

learned trial court to make an endeavour to conclude the

statements of the private witnesses, including the family

members of the victim within four months;

(viii) After the aforesaid direction of Hon'ble

Supreme Court, instead of immediate surrender before the

learned trial court, petitioner/accused remain absconded for

long one year and was put behind the bar on 19.02.2025 only;

(ix) Immediately after passing of one month of his

arrest, the petitioner preferred bail petition before this Court

through Cr. Misc. No. 24554/2025, which was listed before

this Court as "Tied-Up". During course of argument,

considering that present petition was preferred prematurely as

four months' time to examine the private witnesses including

the family members was not even passed, learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
6/13

appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the

petition, which was permitted to withdraw vide order dated

18.04.2025;

(x) Now, this petitioner preferred another bail petition

through Cr. Misc. No. 32907/2025 for grant of provisional

bail on the eve of marriage ceremony of his daughter, where

his prayer was again rejected by this Court vide its order dated

16.05.2025, by giving direction to the jail authority and

administration to make an arrangement for physical

participation of petitioner, in custody for two hours to perform

rituals related with 'Kanyadan' or in alternate to facilitate him

to perform the same through virtual mode on the occasion of

his daughter wedding from jail, however, this liberty was not

availed by the petitioner;

(xi) Now, the petitioner again preferred a bail petition

before this Court which was registered as Cr. Misc. No.

52181/2025, where during the course of argument, it

transpires that almost all the prosecution witnesses have been

examined and the case was fixed for examination of defence

witnesses, therefore, by taking note of the fag end of the trial,

the prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order

dated 09.02.2026.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
7/13

5. Having all such backgrounds, now the petitioner

preferred the present bail petition on the grounds that still this

matter is pending for examination of prosecution witnesses,

private and family members have already examined but trial is

not likely to conclude in near future.

Argument on behalf of the petitioner

6. At the outset, it is submitted by Ms. Nivedita

Nirvikar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner that the present petition preferred on twin grounds,

firstly, long period of custody as petitioner remains in

custody in this matter for about three months (previous

occasion) and continuously since 19.02.2025 i.e. total of

about one year and eight months, and, secondly, slow

progress of trial as still this matter is pending for examination

of prosecution witnesses.

7. Certainly, this Court is not in a position to re-

consider the merit, as all the available merits were duly

considered by this Court while rejecting the prayer of bail of

this petitioner through Cr. Misc. No. 3386 of 2019 dated

04.05.2023, which would be otherwise amounting to review

its own earlier order, which is not possible under law and,

therefore, merit out of referred paras of case diary as available
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
8/13

under para nos. 26, 29, 47, 49, 59, 90 & 93 by Ms. Nirvikar

was not taken care of again as same were already considered

while considering earlier bail petition that is Cr. Misc. No.

3386 of 2019.

8. Arguing in support of her submission that the trial

of this case cannot be concluded in near future, Ms. Nirvikar,

submitted that still one charge-sheet witness is left for his

complete examination and the petition of the petitioner under

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned trial

court for re-examination of the I.O.

9. It is argued further that several important

witnesses like Ganour Kumar, Shivani and Bablu are required

to be examined in this matter, because co-accused Pankaj

Kumar categorically stated that he sold the SIM from his shop

to one Ganour Kumar, but said Ganour Kumar was not made

charge-sheeted witness. It is also pointed out that the name of

Bablu transpired in FIR itself, who could be otherwise a best

witness of the occurrence to link the circumstances, but he

was also not made charge-sheet witness by the prosecution in

this case. It is also submitted that Ganour Kumar himself

stated during investigation that Shivani is his daughter who

was using the mobile number 7361907855, but instead to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
9/13

examine Shivani, the police falsified the existence of Shivani

saying that the wife of petitioner was using the alleged mobile

phone under the name of Shivani and as such, petitioner

decided to file another petition under section 311 of the

Cr.P.C. for examination of these witnesses as their

examination is essentially required for just decision of this

case.

10. It is submitted by Ms. Nirvikar that the right of

fair trial cannot be taken away from the petitioner and,

therefore, in all such events as mentioned aforesaid, the

examination of prosecution witnesses may continue for years

but fairly conceded that till now there is no such petition

under section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court as to

examine the aforesaid witnesses.

11. It is submitted by Ms. Nirvikar that right to

“speedy trial” is a fundamental right of the petitioner as

available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which

appears compromised in view of aforesaid slow progress of

trial. In support of her submission, Ms. Nirvikar relied upon

the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available

through Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary

State of Bihar, [1980 (1) SCC 98].
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
10/13

Submission on behalf of the Informant

12. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, learned

A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by Mr. Ashhar Mustafa,

learned counsel appearing for the first informant, submitted

that vide letter no. 68 dated 14.05.2026, out of 11 prosecution

witnesses, Nine (9) witnesses have been examined and two

witnesses namely, Chandan Pandey and Nunu Kumar Sharma

are yet to be examined. Prosecution evidence was closed by

the learned trial court. It was only on the petition of the

petitioner, the learned trial court was pleased to allow the

petition under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for re-examination of

the I.O. of this case i.e. PW-9.

13. It is argued that there is no petition till date

under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examination of Ganour

Kumar, Bablu and Shivani, as submitted aforesaid either by

the petitioner or by prosecution, therefore, it can be safely

said that almost all prosecution witnesses now examined in

this matter and there is no latches on the part of the State

agency and, as such, argument advanced by the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner qua violation of fundamental right

of the petitioner, as submitted aforesaid, is not appears

convincing.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
11/13

14. Mr. Mustafa, learned counsel for the informant

relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as

available through Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand

reported in (2024) 6 SCC 758 in support of submission that

bail should not be granted at fag end of trial, where in para

‘3’, Hon’ble Apex Court held that “In view of the above, we

are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, more

particularly, when the trial is at the fag end.”

15. It is submitted by Mr. Mustafa that the conduct

of petitioner categorically speaks that he made all possible

efforts to defeat investigation and the trial. In support of his

submission, Mr. Mustafa submitted that despite direction of

Hon’ble Supreme Court to surrender immediately, vide order

dated 29.02.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No. 6907 of 2023 (arising out of impugned final judgment

and order dated 04.05.2023 in CRLMN No. 3386/2019

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna), petitioner

was absconding for long one year and was not surrendered

before the learned trial court and only after formation of

Special Investigation Team (in short ‘SIT’) he was arrested

and put behind the bar and, since then, he is in custody since

19.02.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
12/13

16. In this context, Mr. Mustafa pointed out that

petitioner is under habit to change his lawyer frequently

before the learned trial court, where for formulated reasons he

changed his advocate making progress of trial slow. In this

context, it is submitted that certainly petitioner cannot take

advantage of his own wrong. It is also pointed out that

petitioner earlier made an attempt to avail the benefit of bail

or even provisional bail on frivolous reasons because as per

his best information, there was no any such marriage of his

daughter. The petitioner is making all possible efforts to come

out from jail. This conduct of the petitioner suggest that upon

bail, he may run away from the court proceeding and it would

be difficult again to produce him before the court of law, who

not even honoured the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court

and remains absconded for one year and was arrested only

after formation of SIT.

Conclusion

17. Having heard learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the parties and after going through the materials

available on record and also taking note of the fact as the

conduct of the petitioner who even not honoured the order of

the Hon’ble Apex Court and despite direction, he remained
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
13/13

absconding for one year whereafter he was arrested, coupled

with the fact that trial of this case is almost at its fag end, as

discussed aforesaid, accordingly, prayer of regular bail of the

petitioner stands rejected.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-

U T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.