Patna High Court

Pankaj Kumar Bharti @ Pankaj BhartiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 31 March 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: PRAVEEN KUMAR

Holding

The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the charge‑framing process under Section 302 IPC.

Summary

The petitioner, Pankaj Kumar Bharti, challenged the framing of charges against him in a murder case (Section 302 IPC) that were framed on 12‑12‑2025. The opposition submitted a certified copy of the charge sheet, and the court recorded it. The petitioner sought judicial interference with the charge‑framing process. The court examined whether it could intervene after the charges had been formally framed and explained to the accused. Finding that the procedural steps of charge framing were duly completed, the court held that it was not inclined to interfere. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can interfere with the framing of charges under Section 302 IPC after they have been formally framed and explained to the accused.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 302

Subjects

Criminal Procedure Code
Charge Framing
Section 302 IPC
High Court Order
Non‑interference

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3436 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2017 Thana- BEERPUR District- Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Pankaj Kumar Bharti @ Pankaj Bharti Son of Vishwanath Mahto Resident of
                 Village - Jagdar Ward No.4, P.S. - Birpur, District - Begusarai
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
           1.     The State of Bihar
           2.     Dharmendra Kumar Son of Late Sanjay Chaudhary Resident of Village -
                  Dadpur, P.S. - Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Randhir Kumar No 1, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP
                 For Opposite Party No.2 :         Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   31-03-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 has

                   submitted that charges have been framed against petitioner on

                   12.12.2025 and has produced a photocopy of the certified copy

                   of charge framed.

                                3. Let it be kept on record.

                                4. Considering the case to be under Section 302,

                   accusations having been explained to the petitioner and charges

                   having been framed against him, this Court is not inclined to

                   interfere in the matter, the same is accordingly dismissed.



                                              (Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.