Patna High Court
Sheikh Danish @ Danish Raza @ DanishversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the Supreme Court precedent preclude granting bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Sheikh Danish, was arrested in connection with a case involving kidnapping, rape, and murder of a minor, charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He sought regular bail, claiming false implication, lack of criminal antecedent, and that only half of the witnesses had been examined, which he argued did not support the prosecution. The State opposed bail, relying on a recent Supreme Court decision (X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024) emphasizing the gravity of such offences. The Patna High Court, considering the seriousness of the charges and the Supreme Court precedent, declined to grant bail and dismissed the application. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the trial and improve its reporting on case status.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing charges of kidnapping, rape, murder, and offences under the POCSO Act.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024, mandates denial of bail in such serious offences.
- Whether the limited examination of witnesses and alleged false implication justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 201, 302, 34, 363, 366, 376
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping
- rape
- murder
- POCSO
- serious offences
- criminal procedure
- trial acceleration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75318 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2023 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sheikh Danish @ Danish Raza @ Danish S/o Sheikh Rustam @ Mahto
Resident of village- Laxmipur Madhumalti, P.S- Sugauli, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Daroga Thakur S/o Late Devsharan Thakur R/o Village- Laxmipur
Madhumalti, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sugauli
P.S. Case No. 130/2023 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 363, 366A, 34 of the I.P.C. and later on Sections
376, 302, 201, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act
was added subsequently.
3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals
kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and thereafter,
her dead body was found.
4. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the
basis of the re-statement of the informant. The petitioner was in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75318 of 2025(7) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
relationship with the victim and the victim had become pregnant
and thereafter, the petitioner along with other co-accused
namely, Shekh Daulat Ansari, Shekh Rustam and another
criminal murdered the deceased and threw her body in the river.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned
counsel further submits that he has no criminal antecedent and
he is in custody since 29.07.2025. It is next submitted that in the
trial out of eight only four witnesses have been examined and
the witnesses does not support the prosecution, therefore, the
petitioner deserves the privilege of bail. The petitioner
undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for regular bail of the petitioner and relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539.
7. Considering the gravity of the offence and the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed and
the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75318 of 2025(7) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
same at the earliest.
9. Before parting with the order, I have to caution the
Trial Judge, who was asked to send a report to this Court. The
Trial Judge has not sent a proper report and has simply sent a
report stating that the case is pending for evidence. It was the
duty of the Trial Court to mention the stage of the case by
saying that the charges were framed and the number of
witnesses being examined. In future, he should be vigilant and
should send the report, as asked by this Court, properly.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…