Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Amrendra Kumar @ Amrendra Kumar Jha @ Sonu JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted as the gravity of the murder charge and the pending framing of charges outweighed the petitioner’s clean antecedent.

Summary

The petitioner, Amrendra Kumar, was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly murdering a deceased person and was in custody since 12‑12‑2024. He filed a second application for regular bail after an earlier bail denial. The prosecution argued that the petitioner played a direct role in the killing, which involved anti‑mortem injuries, and that the trial was about to proceed to charge‑framing. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted his clean antecedents, while the State noted the seriousness of the offence and the pending framing of charges. The court, finding no sufficient ground to override its earlier decision, dismissed the bail application, directing the prosecution to present evidence after charges are framed.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused in a murder case (IPC 302) with alleged participation under Section 34 when the trial is pending charge‑framing
  • Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and custody duration justify bail despite the gravity of the offence

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • murder
  • IPC 302
  • IPC 34
  • high court
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6675 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- BENIPATTI District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Amrendra Kumar @ Amrendra Kumar Jha @ Sonu Jha S/o Shri Baidyanath
                 Jha R/o Village - Damodarpur, P.S - Benipatti, District - Madhubani

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-02-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                 2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case No.

                   119 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302 and

                   34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the

                   petitioner was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in

                   Cr. Misc. No. 30656 of 2025 which reads as under:-

                                              Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
                                   learned APP for the State.
                                          2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection
                                   with Benipatti P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 registered for
                                   the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal
                                   Code.
                                          3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and
                                   other accused named in the FIR are said to have killed
                                   the deceased. The petitioner has call the deceased from
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6675 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
                                                          2/2




                                        his house and has taken him away on his motorcycle
                                        and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found
                                        on which there were anti-mortem injuries also.
                                              4. The petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2024.
                                              5. Considering the role of the petitioner in the
                                        killing of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to
                                        grant bail to the petitioner.
                                               6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.


                                     3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

                        petitioner that petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2024 and has

                        clean antecedent.

                                     4. Learned counsel for the informant submits that co-

                        accused Javed has delayed the trial by filing a discharge

                        application and now discharge application has been dismissed

                        and charges are to be framed.

                                     5. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that

                        the charges are going to be framed, this Court finds no ground to

                        review its earlier order.

                                     6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again and

                        prosecution is directed to adduce the evidence after framing of

                        charge.



                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

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.