Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Anand Murti @ Pintu @ ChintuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was denied as the trial was essentially completed and the case was pending judgment.

Summary

The petitioner, Anand Murti, was charged under Sections 363, 364, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for offences including robbery, dacoity, murder, and conspiracy. He applied for regular bail for the third time, having previously been denied twice. The petitioner argued that the trial was essentially over with only one witness left, and that the case was fixed for judgment. The Court examined the stage of the proceedings and held that since the trial was substantially complete, granting bail would be inappropriate. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted to an accused when the trial is substantially concluded and the case is fixed for judgment.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • IPC
  • robbery
  • dacoity
  • murder
  • conspiracy
  • trial stage

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56111 of 2025
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2022 Thana- DALSINGHSARAI District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Anand Murti @ Pintu @ Chintu S/o Late Kusheshwar Mahto R/o Village-
                 Bandhara, PS- Dalsinghsarai (Ghataho OP), District- Samastipur

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. This is the 3rd attempt of the petitioner. The

                   petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dalsinghsarai (Ghataho

                   O.P.) P.S. Case No. 172 of 2022 registered for the offence under

                   Sections 363, 364, 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was

                   rejected twice on 29.02.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 78117 of 2023

                   and on 08.01.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 88014 of 2024. The order

                   dated 08.01.2025 reads as follows:-

                                                          Heard learned counsel for the
                                              petitioner and learned APP for the State.
                                                          2. The petitioner seeks bail in
                                              connection with Dalsinghsarai (Ghataho) P.S.
                                              Case No. 172 of 2022 registered for the offence
                                              under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and
                                              later Sections 364, 302, 201 and 34 of the
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56111 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                                              Indian Penal Code were also added.
                                                          3. It has been submitted by the
                                              learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial
                                              of the petitioner has almost concluded and the
                                              case is now fixed for judgment.
                                                          4. Considering the fact that the trial
                                              of the petitioner is completed and the case is
                                              now fixed for judgment, this Court is not
                                              inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
                                                          5. Accordingly, this application is
                                              dismissed.


                                   4. The learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly

                      submits that only one witness is left to be examined.

                                   5. In view of the above, this application for regular

                      bail stands rejected.



                                                         (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.