Patna High Court
Anand Sharma @ Anant SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that there were sufficient grounds to reject the petitioner's application.
Summary
Anand Sharma applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC for the murder of a deceased person. The prosecution relied on a confessional statement of co‑accused Shambhu Sah, recovered items such as the petitioner’s motorcycle and a side‑mirror, and the brutal nature of the crime. The petitioner claimed innocence, citing two prior criminal antecedents for which he was on bail, and argued that the only link to the crime was the co‑accused’s confession. The State opposed bail, asserting the petitioner’s involvement. The Court, noting the petitioner’s alleged role, the ongoing trial, and the lack of any new ground, refused to revisit its earlier order and dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case where a co‑accused has made a confessional statement.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be reviewed in light of the trial’s progress.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- confessional statement
- trial
- co‑accused
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80378 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2023 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul
======================================================
Anand Sharma @ Anant Sharma son of Late Jagdev Sharma Resident Of
Village- Baghmara parmanandpur Nandipatti, Ward No 12, P.s. -Srinagar,
District -Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 09-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned APP for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, the
learned counsel for the informant.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No. 270
of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201,
120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 25.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 55380 of 2024 which
reads as follows:-
Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Jadiya P.S. Case No. 270/2023,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80378 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
registered for the offence under Sections 302,
201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
dead body of the deceased was found
subsequently during investigation, the
coaccused Shambhu Sah has made confessional
statement saying that he along with the
petitioner had brutally killed the deceased. They
cut the penis of the deceased also and side
mirror of the petitioner was recovered from the
place of occurrence and the motorcycle of the
petitioner was recovered from the house of the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is innocent and has not
committed any offence. Thepetitioner has two
criminal antecedent and in both cases he is on
bail. The name of the petitioner surfaced in this
case on the confessional statement of
apprehended co-accused. The petitioner is in
custody since 18.01.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the
petitioner was also involved in the said crime.
6. Considering the role of the
petitioner in the crime, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is dismissed.
4. Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80378 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
submits that out of 13 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been
examined.
5. In view of the fact that the trial is proceeding, this
Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.
6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is
rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.