Patna High Court
Ajit Kumar @ BholiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petition for regular bail was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajit Kumar, was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including murder (302/34), and section 27 of the Arms Act. He applied for regular bail, claiming innocence and alleging that the informant’s statements were inconsistent and that not all witnesses had been examined. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the ongoing trial. The court noted that only four of six charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined and that the trial was still in progress. Considering the gravity of the charges and the incomplete evidentiary record, the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail and rejected the application, directing the trial court to complete the trial within four months.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with serious offences including murder.
- Whether the stage of trial and the examination of witnesses justify denial of bail.
- Whether inconsistencies in the informant’s statements affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 307, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- trial stage
- witness examination
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55478 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-307 Year-2024 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Ajit Kumar @ Bholi Son of Late Surendra Mahto Resident of village - Naya
Tola Sangat, P.O. and P.S.- Bakhtiarpur, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail
in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 307 of 2024,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act.
Subsequently, Section 302/34 of IPC was added.
3. As per allegation, other accused persons caught
hold of the deceased, and the petitioner fired at him, as a result
of which he died during the course of treatment at PMCH.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been
implicated. The informant has been examined. His statement is
contrary to his earlier statement (fard beyan). He stated in fard
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55478 of 2025(6) dt.03-02-2026
2/2
beyan that he was present at his darwaja at the time of
occurrence and in his deposition, he has stated that the place of
occurrence was not visible from darwaja where he was present.
He has submitted further that out of six witnesses, only four
have been examined. Two witnesses have been remained to be
examined. He has also submitted that after 15.05.2025, no
witness turned up in witness box.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. The trial is in its full swing and out of six charge-
sheeted witnesses, four have already been examined.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for
bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
8. It is expected that the learned trial court shall
conclude the trial within a period of four months, failing which
the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the
court below itself.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…