Abhinav KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40827 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2022 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR District-
                                                        Begusarai
                 ======================================================
                 Abhinav Kumar Son of Ajay Kunwar @ Ajay Shankar Kunwar @ Ajay
                 Shankar Sharma R/o Village - Binodpur, P.S. - Singhaul, Dist. - Begusarai.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                          ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-06-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. This is the second anticipatory bail petition

                   preferred by the petitioner after rejection of his first prayer of

                   anticipatory bail through Cr. Misc. No. 77592 of 2023 dated

                   21.06.2024 in connection with Cheriya Bariyarpur P.S. Case No.

                   03 of 2022 registered for the offence under section 302/34 of the

                   I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The present second prayer of anticipatory bail was

                   preferred on the sole ground that the petitioner was not sent up

                   for trial, as police submitted closure report against the petitioner

                   vide charge-sheet No. 153/2022 dated 22.07.2022, but the same

                   was not taken care of by the learned coordinate Bench while

                   passing the order in Cr. Misc. No. 77592/2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40827 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. The allegation against petitioner is that he along

          with other co-accused persons have committed the murder of

          father of the informant, where petitioner was seen at the place of

          occurrence during his escape alongwith other co-accused

          persons.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at

          the time of occurrence in the house of informant, her maternal

          uncle was also present. It is submitted that only one accused was

          noticed by the informant (daughter of the deceased), who was

          Lalan Singh, but as her maternal uncle was in another room of

          the house, he identified rest of the two persons, who were not

          identified by the informant. This petitioner was one of them who

          is none but the co-villager of the maternal uncle of the

          informant with whom land dispute is pending, leading to his

          false implication with the present crime in question.

                       6. It is submitted that considering all aforesaid aspects

          and CDR, police submitted closure report against the petitioner.

                       7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the

          prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that

          charge-sheet was submitted on 22.07.2022, whereas prayer of

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated

          21.06.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 77592/2023 and, therefore,
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40827 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
                                                       3/3




                     petitioner had all occasion to raise these arguments before this

                     Court at relevant point of time.

                                  8. It is submitted by Learned A.P.P. that now this

                     argument should not be accepted for the reason that same was

                     available with the petitioner at the time of hearing of his earlier

                     prayer of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted by learned

                     A.P.P. that the occurrence is heinous in nature, where petitioner

                     was identified by one of the witness fleeing away immediately

                     after the occurrence alongwith other co-accused persons and as

                     such there is no occasion to reconsider the present second prayer

                     of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                                  9. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by

                     taking note of the fact as the closure report, as submitted

                     aforesaid, was already available with the petitioner at the time

                     of rejection of his first anticipatory bail, therefore, there is no

                     occasion to reconsider the prayer of anticipatory bail of the

                     petitioner     on     second      occasion,      accordingly,   prayer   of

                     anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected on second

                     consideration also.


                                                                   (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-

U      T