Asha Kumari vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34622 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-895 Year-2024 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Asha Kumari W/o- Late Rajiv Ratan Gupta Resident of mohalla-Bajrangpuri,
Near Shiv temple, P.S- Alamganj, Dist- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav S/o- Surju Singh Resident of Tilhar, P.S-
Khusrupur, Dist- Patna. Presently At- Bajrangpuri Patligram apartment,
Gaighat, Bajrangpuri, Shiv mandir, P.S. Alamganj, Dist Patna.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Raghav Vats, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nityanand, APP
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 10-07-2026
The present application has been filed by the
petitioner-informant under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying for
cancellation of the regular bail granted to the opposite party
no.2, namely, Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav, by the District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City, vide order dated
28.03.2026 passed in Sessions Trial No.1309 of 2025, arising
out of Alamganj P.S. Case No.895 of 2024 (G.R. No.711 of
2025), registered for the offences punishable under Sections
103(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
2/48
and Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which Sections 25(1-B)(a),
26 and 35 of the Arms Act came to be added in course of the
investigation.
2. The prosecution case, as set out in the
written report of the petitioner-informant dated 08.10.2024, is
that on the said date, at about 5:00 A.M., her husband, namely,
Rajiv Ratan Gupta, had gone out for his daily morning walk,
was shot dead. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2, whose
house adjoins the newly constructed house of the informant, had
a land dispute with the deceased and had persistently been
pressurizing him to execute/transfer the said house in his name,
holding out the threat that upon his failure to do so, his wife
would be widowed. It is further alleged that two or three days
prior to the occurrence, the opposite party no.2 had called the
deceased and caused pressure to be exerted upon him through
other criminals, that the opposite party no.2 was aware of the
daily routine of the deceased of going out for a morning walk,
and that it is in that setting that the deceased was shot dead. The
informant alleges that the opposite party no.2, along with others,
committed the murder of her husband with the intention of
grabbing her newly built house. On the basis of the said written
report, Alamganj P.S. Case No.895 of 2024 dated 08.10.2024
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
3/48
came to be registered against the opposite party no.2, who is the
solitary named accused therein, and others were unknown
criminals.
3 . From the records, it appears that, in course of
the investigation, as also recorded in paragraph no. 20 of the
case diary, the accused Sunny Kumar and Dharmendra Kumar
were seen in the CCTV footage of the occurrence, whereupon
they were apprehended. The confessional statement of the
accused Dharmendra Kumar, which is recorded in paragraph no.
25 of the case diary, disclosed that the co-accused Sunny Kumar
fired upon the victim, and the arms was supplied to him by the
co-accused Shiv Kumar and Rohit Pandey, further the present
opposite party no.2 had given Rs.5,000/- to the co-accused
Sunny Kumar as an advance to kill the deceased-Rajeev Ratan
Gupta. In paragraph no.29 of the case diary, the co-accused
Sunny Kumar is recorded to have admitted that he had met the
opposite party no.2 about four months prior to the occurrence
and had interacted with him for committing the crime. In
paragraph no. 32 of the case diary, the confessional statement of
the co-accused Shiv Kumar @ Hira Choudhary is recorded to
the effect that the weapon used in the murder of the deceased
was given by him to the co-accused Rohit Pandey. A country-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
4/48
made pistol with a magazine, being the weapon allegedly used
in the occurrence, was recovered from the co-accused Rohit
Pandey near his house, and a sum of Rs.2,500/- was recovered
from the co-accused Sunny Kumar, and mobile phones were
seized from the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar, Shiv Kumar
and Rohit Pandey, under seizure lists.
4. Upon conclusion of the investigation,
charge-sheet No.1622 of 2024 dated 31.12.2024 came to be
submitted against the opposite party no.2 and the four co-
accused, namely, Dharmendra Kumar, Sunny Kumar, Rohit
Pandey and Shiv Kumar @ Hira Choudhary, for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS and
Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. Cognizance
was taken vide order dated 17.02.2025 and, upon commitment,
charges were framed against all the accused persons, including
the opposite party no.2, vide order dated 13.08.2025 passed by
the Additional District Judge-I, Patna City, in Sessions Trial
No.1309 of 2025. The opposite party no.2 was arrested on
08.10.2024, i.e., on the very date of the occurrence, and was
remanded to judicial custody on 09.10.2024.
5. The opposite party no.2 had twice earlier
moved this Court for grant of regular bail. His first prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
5/48
regular bail, being Criminal Miscellaneous No.10643 of 2025,
was heard by a Coordinate Bench of this Court which was heard
and disposed of along with Criminal Miscellaneous No.21416
of 2025, preferred by the co-accused Rohit Pandey and Shiv
Kumar @ Hira Choudhary, and all the said prayers were
rejected by a common order dated 13.05.2025. It is apposite to
notice that, in the said proceeding, the learned counsel
appearing for the opposite party no.2 had himself apprised the
Court of the criminal antecedents of the opposite party no.2, in
the following words:-
“4. … It is also submitted that petitioner, namely,
Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav is in judicial
custody since 09.10.2024 and he has got five
criminal antecedents …”
6. The order dated 13.05.2025, rejecting the
prayer for bail of the opposite party no.2 and of the co-accused
Rohit Pandey and Shiv Kumar @ Hira Choudhary, further
records as under:-
“5. However, learned Counsel for the informant
and learned APP for the State have opposed
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the informant submits
that house of the petitioner, namely, Sanjeet
Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav is adjacent to the
house of the informant and he wants to grab
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
6/48
her house that is why he along with other
petitioners have killed the husband of the
informant. He further submits that
petitioners are notorious criminals and they
have executed the commission of the crime.
He further submits that keeping the gravity
and seriousness of the crime and criminal
antecedents of the petitioners the bail for the
petitioners should be rejected. He further
submits that an FIR (Alamganj P.S. Case
No.1109 of 2024) was registered from the
informant side where two persons
threatening the sister of the informant for
taking back the complaint against the
petitioners otherwise they will be killed.
Weapon used in the crime is recovered from
the petitioner namely, Rohit Pandey @ Rohit
Kumar Pandey. He further submits that in
paragraph no.32 of the case diary i.e.
confessional statement of Shiv Kumar, it is
mentioned that weapon used in the murder of
the deceased is given to the petitioner
namely, Rohit Pandey @ Rohit Kumar
Pandey by the petitioner namely, Shiv Kumar
@ Hira Choudhary @ Shivshankar
Chaudhary which is came under CCTV
Footage. Therefore, there is strong nexus
between petitioner, namely, Shiv Kumar @
Hira Chaudhary @ Shivshankar Chaudhary,
petitioner namely, Rohit Pandey @ Rohit
Kumar Pandey and petitioner, namely,
Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav. From
seizure list, it appears that weapons used in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
7/48
the crime was recovered near to the house of
the petitioner namely, Rohit Pandey @ Rohit
Kumar Pandey.
6. From perusal of the F.I.R., impugned order
and case diary, it appears that all petitioners
are involved in the commission of the
murder of the deceased.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel
for the parties, I am not inclined to grant
regular bail to the petitioners.” (emphasis
supplied).
7. The opposite party no.2 thereafter renewed
his prayer for regular bail before this Court by filing Criminal
Miscellaneous No.56740 of 2025. The said prayer was rejected
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
26.09.2025 having found that no fresh ground to reconsider the
prayer of the petitioner therein.
8. The record of the co-accused persons, insofar
as their prayers for bail are concerned, may also be noticed. The
prayer for regular bail of the co-accused Sunny Kumar, who was
seen in the CCTV footage at the place of occurrence and who is
named in the confessional statement recorded in paragraph no.
25 of the case diary as the person who fired upon the deceased,
was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 18.08.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.49656
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
8/48
of 2025, having regard to the specific and heinous nature of the
offence, with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial
and conclude the same at the earliest. His second attempt for
grant of bail was also dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2026
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.20042 of 2026 having
found no new ground to review the earlier order.
9 . The prayer for regular bail of the co-accused
Rohit Pandey was rejected vide the common order dated
13.05.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.21416 of 2025
and, again, vide order dated 09.01.2026 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.84414 of 2025, there being no fresh ground
to reconsider his prayer. The prayer for regular bail of the co-
accused Shiv Kumar @ Hira Choudhary was likewise rejected
vide the common order dated 13.05.2025, and his subsequent
application, being Criminal Miscellaneous No.18933 of 2026,
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.04.2026, with
liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
10 . The solitary co-accused to have been
enlarged on bail is Dharmendra Kumar, whose prayer was
allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
19.08.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.38287 of
2025. It was urged on his behalf therein before the Co-ordinate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
9/48
Bench, that he is not named in the F.I.R. and his name had
sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused,
further the specific allegation of firing is against the co-accused
Sunny Kumar, and lastly, that he has two criminal antecedents
and was in custody since 17.10.2024. The Coordinate Bench,
vide the said order, directed as under:-
“6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case as well as the period of custody , the
petitioner above-named, is directed to be enlarged
on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court
concerned, Patna City, Patna in connection with
Alamganj P.S. Case No.895 of 2024, with the
condition;-
(i). The petitioner is directed to remain
physically present before the learned Court
below on each and every date, failing which
on two consecutive dates without reasonable
cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable
to be cancelled.” (emphasis supplied).
11. It is of significance, to underscore and
emphasize that the aforequoted order dated 19.08.2025
enlarging the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar on bail was
passed prior to the order dated 26.09.2025, whereby the second
prayer for regular bail of the opposite party no.2 was rejected by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court upon the categorical finding
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
10/48
that there was no fresh ground to reconsider his prayer.
12. Undeterred, the opposite party no.2 filed yet
another petition for bail, this time before the Trial Court, in
Sessions Trial No.1309 of 2025. The present petitioner has
annexed the aforesaid bail petition moved before the Trial Court
as Annexure P/5 to this petitoin. In paragraph no.2 of the said
bail petition, the opposite party no.2 disclosed the rejection of
his two earlier prayers by this Court, however, in paragraph no.
3 thereof, he disclosed only two criminal antecedents, namely,
Alamganj P.S. Case No.878 of 2024 and Khusrupur P.S. Case
No.140 of 2022. It is on the said petition that the impugned
order dated 28.03.2026 came to be passed by the District &
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City, enlarging the opposite
party no.2 on bail. The concluding part thereof, which contains
the consideration and the conclusion of the learned Trial Court,
deserves to be noticed verbatim, and reads as under:-
ÞvfHkys[k voyksdu ls fofnr gksrk gS lkFk gh vkosnd ds
vf/koäk dk vfHkdFku gS fd bl okn esa /kkjk 103/61 ¼2½
chå,uå,lå ,oa 27 'kL= vf/kfu;e esa çkFkfedh ntZ fd;k
x;k gSA vkosnd@vfHk;qä çkFkfedh ds uketn vfHk;qä gSA
dkaM nSfudh ds dafMdk la[;k 20 esa ?kVuk ds lh-lh-Vh-oh-
QqVst esa vfHk;qä lUuh dqekj ,oa /kesZUæ dqekj dks ?kVuk
dkfjr djrs gq, ns[kk x;k gSA vfHk;qä /kesZUæ dqekj ,oa
lUuh dqekj dk Lohdkjksfä c;ku fy;k x;k gSA dkaM
nSfudh ds dafMdk la[;k 51 esa vkosnd@vfHk;qä ds nksuksa
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
11/48
eksckbZy uacj ls fdlh Hkh lg vfHk;qä ds eksckbZy ij
ckrphr gksus dk fjdkMZ ugha ik;k x;k gSA dkaM nSfudh ds
dafMdk la[;k 56] 57] 58] 59 ,oa 60 esa lkf{k;ksa ds c;ku
dk voyksdu ls ;g Hkh rF; vk;k fd lwfpdk ds HkkbZ çeksn
dqekj flagk ds }kjk vkosnd@vfHk;qä dks tehu dk
cS;o;kuk dj vkosnd@vfHk;qä ls chl yk[k :i;s vfxze
jkf'k ds :i esa fy;k x;k gS ijarq dfFkr tehu
vkosnd@vfHk;qä ds i{k esa fucaf/kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g
rF; lkf{k;ksa }kjk Loh—r gS fd vkosnd@vfHk;qä ds }kjk
lwfpdk ds HkkbZ dks chl yk[k :i, vfxze jkf'k ds :i esa
Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd@vfHk;qä ds fo:) e`rd
dks iwoZ ds dfFkr /kedh nsus dk lugk vFkok vkosnu ugha
fn;k x;k gSA lg vfHk;qä /kesZUæ dqekj ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky;] iVuk ds vkns'k ls tekur ij eqä gSA ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk ccquh ;kno cuke fcgkj ljdkj
esa vfHkdFku fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn leku vkjksi esa ;fn lg
vfHk;qä dks tekur çnku dh x;h gS rks vU; vfHk;qä dks
Hkh fupyh vnkyr }kjk tekur çnku fd, tkus ij
ldkjkRed fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vkosnd@vfHk;qä ,d 65 % fodykax O;fä gS tks cSlk[kh
ds lgkjs pyrk gS rFkk bl laca/k esa dkxtkr nkf[ky fd;k
x;k gSA okn esa vkjksi dk xBu fd;k tk pqdk gS rFkk
vkosnd@vfHk;qä fnukad 09-10-2024 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa
gS ,oa bl dkaM esa N% xokgksa dh xokgh gks pqdh gSA bl
dkaM ds fopkj.k esa dksbZ çfrdqy çHkko iM+us dh vk'kadk
ugha jg x;h gSA
mijksä rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vkyksd esa
vkosnd@vfHk;qä dks tekur ij eqä djuk U;k;ksfpr
çrhr gksrk gS vkSj vkosnd@vfHk;qä dks 10]000@& :i;s
ds ca/ki= ,oa leku jkf'k ds nks çfrHkqvksa ds ca/ki= nkf[ky
djus ij tekur ij eqä fd;k tkrk gSAß
13. It is also necessary to notice that the
impugned order, while recording the submissions advanced on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
12/48
behalf of the opposite party no.2, recites as under:-
“इसकके पूर आरकेदक ककी ओर सके ननियनमित जमिमानित आरकेदनि
मिमानिनिनीय उच्च न्यमायमालय, पटनिमा कके दमारमा नदनिमानांक
13.05.2025 कको नक0 नमि0 सनांख्यमा- 56740/2025 मिम
खमाररज नकयमा गयमा है।”
14 . The aforesaid recital conflates the date of the
first rejection 13.05.2025, which was passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.10643 of 2025 with the number of the second
application being Criminal Miscellaneous No.56740 of 2025,
which was rejected on 26.09.2025, and, what is of far greater
important is that the impugned order nowhere adverts to the
second rejection dated 26.09.2025 at all.
15. At the outset, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is
unsustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the learned Trial
Court has enlarged the opposite party no.2 on bail
notwithstanding that his prayer for regular bail had been
rejected on two earlier occasions by the Coordinate Benches of
this Court, vide orders dated 13.05.2025 and 26.09.2025, and
the impugned order neither adverts to the reasons which
impelled the aforesaid Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to
decline bail, nor records any substantial or material change in
the fact-situation intervening between the second rejection dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
13/48
26.09.2025 and the impugned order dated 28.03.2026. It is
submitted that a Court subordinate in the judicial hierarchy
cannot, on substantially the same material, grant a relief which
the superior Court has categorically declined, and that the
course adopted by the learned Trial Court is destructive of
judicial discipline, propriety and comity. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance in this behalf upon the
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao , reported as
1989 Supp (2) SCC 605 , Bimla Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. ,
reported as (1994) 2 SCC 8 , and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. , reported as (2004) 7
SCC 528 .
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
next submitted that the parity extended by the Trial Court with
reference to the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar is wholly
misplaced, for a twofold reasons. Firstly , as per the allegation,
the role attributed to the opposite party no.2 is distinct from, and
graver than, that of the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar. It is
emphasised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
opposite party no.2 is the solitary accused named in the F.I.R.,
with an independent motive narrative which predates the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
14/48
confessional statements, namely, the land dispute, the design to
grab the newly built house of the informant and the threats held
out to the deceased, and he is the alleged procurer and financier
( supari -giver) of the contract killing, having paid Rs.5,000/- as
an advance to the shooter and having met him about four
months prior to the occurrence, whereas the co-accused
Dharmendra Kumar is not named in the F.I.R., no overt act of
firing is attributed to him and he has only two criminal
antecedents as against five of the opposite party no.2,
17. Secondly , the plea of parity stood foreclosed,
inasmuch as the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar was enlarged
on bail on 19.08.2025, and it is thereafter, on 26.09.2025, that
the Coordinate Bench of this Court rejected the second prayer of
the opposite party no.2 upon the finding that there was no fresh
ground, it is thus vehemently argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the superior Court having thus declined to
treat the release of Dharmendra Kumar as a ground for the
enlargement of the opposite party no.2, it was not open to the
Trial Court to act upon that very parity. The learned counsel for
the petitioner has drawn strength from the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v.
Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Koli & Ors. , reported as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
15/48
(2021) 6 SCC 230 , and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. ,
reported as (2014) 16 SCC 508 .
18. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the opposite party no.2 has obtained the
impugned order upon a suppression of his criminal antecedents.
It is pointed out that before the Coordinate Bench of this Court,
in the proceeding culminating in the order dated 13.05.2025, the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 therein, had himself
stated that the opposite party no.2 has got five criminal
antecedents, namely, (1) Alamganj P.S. Case No.878 of 2024,
(2) Khusrupur P.S. Case No.140 of 2024, (3) Khusrupur P.S.
Case No.450 of 2024, (4) Khusrupur P.S. Case No.58 of 2015
and (5) Khusrupur P.S. Case No.48 of 2019, whereas in
paragraph 3 of the bail petition filed before the Trial Court, only
two of the said cases were disclosed. It is submitted that the
suppression of criminal antecedents in a bail petition amounts to
playing fraud upon the Court and overreaching its process, and
is, by itself, a sufficient ground for cancellation of the bail, and
further that the impugned order does not advert to the criminal
antecedents of the opposite party no.2 at all. Reliance has been
placed upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha , reported as (2024) 4 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
16/48
432 , and Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. , reported as
(2022) 8 SCC 559 .
19 . The learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that the Trial Court has, at the stage of bail,
has embarked upon an impermissible appreciation of the
material collected in course of the investigation, inasmuch as it
has weighed the confessional statements recorded in paragraph
nos. 25, 29 and 32 of the case diary against the absence of call
detail records (paragraph no. 51), the statement of the tea vendor
(paragraph no.63) and the statements of the witnesses regarding
the advance of Rs.20 lakh (paragraph nos. 56 to 60), and has, in
effect, returned a finding on the strength of the defence, which is
an exercise reserved exclusively for the trial.
20. It is next submitted that the trial had, by the
date of the impugned order, progressed to an advanced stage as
six prosecution witnesses, including the Medical Officer (P.W.-
5) and the Investigating Officer (P.W.-6), have been examined in
the trial and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.,
reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 , once the trial has
commenced and the prosecution has begun examining its
witnesses, the Court should be loath in entertaining the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
17/48
application of the accused in serious offences like murder, and
the trial, once commenced, should be allowed to reach its final
conclusion.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
also submitted that there is a live and demonstrated
apprehension of the misuse of the liberty by the opposite party
no.2, inasmuch as, even while he was in custody, his nephew
and an associate had threatened the family of the informant with
death for the withdrawal of the case, in respect whereof
Alamganj P.S. Case No.1109 of 2024 came to be instituted from
the side of the informant, a circumstance which was expressly
noticed in the order of the Coordinate Bench dated 13.05.2025,
and further that, after his release, the opposite party no.2 and his
associates have often been seen wandering around the house of
the informant, on account whereof the informant, a 56-year old
widow who resides in the house adjoining that of the opposite
party no.2, has a reasonable apprehension of harm. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order fails
to advert to Alamganj P.S. Case No.1109 of 2024 at all.
22. It is also submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has ignored the
uniform treatment which the prayers for bail of the co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
18/48
have received at the hands of the Coordinate Benches of this
Court, and, in particular, that the second rejection of the prayer
of the co-accused Rohit Pandey, vide order dated 09.01.2026
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.84414 of 2025, which was
already on the record of the case when the impugned order came
to be passed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the solitary grant in favour of the co-accused that
is, Dharmendra Kumar, resting as it does upon the period of
custody, could not have been permitted to eclipse the specific
role and the materials available on record and most pressingly
the fact that while rejecting the prayer for bail, the Coordinate
Bench had categorically recorded that no fresh grounds for bail
were made though the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar was
enlarged on bail.
23 . Lastly , the learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Puran v. Rambilas & Anr. , reported as (2001) 6 SCC
338 , Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. , reported as
(2020) 2 SCC 118 , Deepak Yadav (supra) , Ajwar v. Waseem &
Anr. , reported as (2024) 10 SCC 768 , and State of Karnataka v.
Sri Darshan etc., reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 , for
the proposition that an order granting bail which is unjustified,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
19/48
illegal or perverse, or which is founded upon irrelevant
considerations while ignoring the relevant material on record, is
always open to be set aside by the superior Court, and that such
power, being distinct from the power to cancel bail for misuse of
liberty, does not require any supervening misconduct to be
shown.
24 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State has supported the case of the petitioner and has
submitted that the opposite party no.2 is the named accused in
the F.I.R. of a case of a paid (contract killing) and premeditated
murder, and his prayer for bail was rejected twice by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court. The enlargement of the
opposite party no.2 on bail by the learned Trial Court, in the
teeth of the orders of this Court, is likely to imperil the
remainder of the trial.
25 . Per contra , the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 has supported the impugned order and has
submitted that the considerations governing the cancellation of
bail stand on a footing entirely different from those governing
its grant, and that bail once granted is not to be cancelled in a
routine, mechanical or punitive manner in the absence of misuse
of the liberty, breach of the conditions of bail, interference with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
20/48
the investigation or the trial, threat to the witnesses, an attempt
to abscond, or the procurement of bail by fraud, none of which,
it is submitted, is established in the facts of the present case. It is
submitted that the present application discloses no cogent
supervening circumstance arising after the grant of bail and is,
in substance, a challenge to the correctness of the original bail
order, repackaged as an application for cancellation. Reliance
has been placed upon Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana ,
reported as (1995) 1 SCC 349 , Himanshu Sharma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh , reported as (2024) 4 SCC 222 , and Abdul
Basit @ Raju v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary , reported as
(2014) 10 SCC 754 .
26. It is next submitted that the impugned order
is a reasoned order passed in the exercise of sound judicial
discretion upon a consideration of the case diary, and that the
material therein, which far from implicating the opposite party
no.2, exculpates him. It is emphasized by the learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 that he was not seen in the CCTV
footage of the occurrence and nothing incriminating has been
recovered from him. Further, paragraph no.51 of the case diary
records that no call detail record connecting either of his two
mobile numbers with any co-accused was found. Furthermore,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
21/48
paragraph no.63 records that the tea vendor, Vijay Choudhary,
did not support the alleged meeting between the opposite party
no.2 and the co-accused Sunny Kumar and no independent
witness has been examined. The learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 submits that, paragraph nos. 56 to 60 record
the admission of the witnesses that the brother of the informant
had taken Rs.20 lakh from the opposite party no.2 as advance
under an agreement for sale which was never carried to
registration, which furnishes the real motive for his false
implication. It is submitted that the informant is, admittedly, not
an eyewitness to the occurrence and the opposite party no.2
came to be named in the F.I.R. on mere suspicion as a result of
the land dispute. The learned counsel has next submitted that no
complaint or sanha in respect of the alleged prior threats was
ever lodged by the deceased or his family, that the opposite
party no.2 was arrested from his house immediately after the
occurrence and made no attempts to flee.
27. It is further submitted on behalf of the
opposite party no. 2 that there was a genuine and substantial
change in circumstances between the rejection of the second
prayer for bail on 26.09.2025 and the impugned order dated
28.03.2026, inasmuch as the trial had substantially progressed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
22/48
and six prosecution witnesses, including the Medical Officer
and the Investigating Officer, had been examined, further the
prosecution evidence came to be closed on 10.04.2026, within a
fortnight of the impugned order, so the apprehension of
tampering with the evidence, which is the principal purpose of
custody pending trial, already stood exhausted. It is submitted
that the opposite party no.2 had remained in custody for about
seventeen and a half months by the date of the impugned order,
and he is a 65% disabled person who walks with the help of
crutches. It is next submitted that the opposite party no. 2 was
arrested from his house on the date of the occurrence itself and
his re-incarceration at this stage would be purely punitive. It is
also submitted that the opposite party no.2 candidly disclosed
both the earlier rejections, with correct case numbers and dates,
in paragraph 2 of his bail petition before the Trial Court, and
there was, therefore, no fraud or suppression played upon the
Court. Further two criminal antecedents were duly disclosed in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition and the mere pendency of
other criminal cases is not, by itself, a ground to deny bail, as
held in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Anr. , reported as
(2020) 11 SCC 648 .
28. Lastly , on the aspect of parity, the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
23/48
counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the case
of the opposite party no.2 stands on a lesser footing than that of
the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar, who was seen in the CCTV
footage at the place of occurrence and whose confessional
statement is the anchor of the case of the prosecution.
Nonetheless, he been enlarged on bail by this Court, and Trial
Court was, therefore, justified in extending the benefit of the
decision of this Court in Babuni Yadav v. State of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous 52258 of 2007 . It is lastly submitted
that Alamganj P.S. Case No.1109 of 2024 was instituted while
the opposite party no.2 was in custody and names his nephew,
and not the opposite party no.2. Furthermore, the allegation of
the opposite party no.2 wandering around the house of the
informant after his release is wholly vague, bald and bereft of
particulars, no sanha , complaint or other contemporaneous
material having been brought on record in support thereof.
29. I have heard learned counsel for the parties
and considered their submissions. I have also perused the
materials available on record, including the orders of the
Coordinate Benches of this Court and the impugned order dated
28.03.2026, by which the opposite party no.2 has been granted
bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
24/48
30. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties
and on a conspectus of the materials on record, the moot
question that arises for consideration in the present application
is whether the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 is illegal,
perverse or founded upon irrelevant considerations while
ignoring the relevant material on record, so as to warrant its
annulment by this Court.
31 . Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
would be apposite to notice the settled law governing the subject
matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Sri Darshan etc. (supra) , has exhaustively
surveyed the entire jurisprudence on the subject and has held as
under:-
“18. Let us now examine the jurisprudence on when
bail may be annulled or cancelled. Two distinct
categories have emerged in this regard:
(A) Annulment of Bail due to legal
infirmity in the order; and
(B) Cancellation of Bail, i.e., revocation of
bail due to post-grant misconduct or
supervening circumstances.
(A). Annulment of bail orders
18.1. This refers to the appellate or
revisional power to set aside a bail order
that is perverse, unjustified, or passed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
25/48
violation of settled legal principles. It is
concerned with defects existing at the time
the bail was granted, without reference to
subsequent conduct.
xxxx
20.4. Filing of charge sheet or lengthy list
of witnesses does not justify grant of bail.
xxxx
22.4. An order that overlooks material
evidence or proceeds on an erroneous
premise is perverse, and such perversity
forms a valid ground for cancellation or
setting aside of bail. ” (emphasis supplied).
32. The grounds on which bail already granted
may be cancelled were enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana
(supra) , in the following words:-
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at
the initial stage and the cancellation of
bail so granted, have to be considered and
dealt with on different basis. Very cogent
and overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of the bail, already granted.
Generally speaking, the grounds for
cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative
and not exhaustive) are: interference or
attempt to interfere with the due course of
administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to evade the due course of justice
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
26/48
or abuse of the concession granted to the
accused in any manner. The satisfaction of
the court, on the basis of material placed
on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another reason
justifying the cancellation of bail.
However, bail once granted should not be
cancelled in a mechanical manner without
considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it no longer
conducive to a fair trial to allow the
accused to retain his freedom by enjoying
the concession of bail during the trial...”
33 . The illustrative circumstances in which an
order granting bail may itself be set aside were summarized by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Yadav v.
State of U.P. & Anr. (supra) , as under:-
“33. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail
cannot be limited to the occurrence of
supervening circumstances. This Court
certainly has inherent powers and
discretion to cancel the bail of an accused
even in the absence of supervening
circumstances. Following are the
illustrative circumstances where the bail
can be cancelled:-
33.1 Where the court granting bail
takes into account irrelevant
material of substantial nature and
not trivial nature while ignoring
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
27/48
relevant material on record.
33.2. Where the court granting bail
overlooks the influential position of
the accused in comparison to the
victim of abuse or the witnesses
especially when there is prima facie
misuse of position and power over
the victim.
33.3. Where the past criminal
record and conduct of the accused
is completely ignored while
granting bail.
33.4. Where bail has been granted
on untenable grounds.
33.5. Where serious discrepancies
are found in the order granting
bail thereby causing prejudice to
justice.
33.6. Where the grant of bail was
not appropriate in the first place
given the very serious nature of the
charges against the accused which
disentitles him for bail and thus
cannot be justified.
33.7. When the order granting bail
is apparently whimsical, capricious
and perverse in the facts of the
given case. ” (emphasis supplied).
34. The distinction between the cancellation of
bail on account of supervening circumstances or misuse of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
28/48
liberty, on the one hand, and the annulment or setting aside of an
unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail, on the other,
was lucidly explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra), in the following
words:-
“12. We have referred to certain principles to
be kept in mind while granting bail, as has
been laid down by this Court from time to
time. It is well settled in law that
cancellation of bail after it is granted
because the accused has misconducted
himself or of some supervening
circumstances warranting such
cancellation have occurred is in a different
compartment altogether than an order
granting bail which is unjustified, illegal
and perverse. If in a case, the relevant
factors which should have been taken
into consideration while dealing with the
application for bail and have not been
taken note of, or bail is founded on
irrelevant considerations, indisputably
the superior court can set aside the order
of such a grant of bail. Such a case
belongs to a different category and is in a
separate realm. While dealing with a case
of second nature, the Court does not
dwell upon the violation of conditions by
the accused or the supervening
circumstances that have happened
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
29/48
subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves
into the justifiability and the soundness of
the order passed by the Court.”
(emphasis supplied).
35. The position has been reiterated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajwar v. Waseem & Anr . ,
reported as (2024) 10 SCC 768 , in the following words:-
“27. It is equally well settled that bail once
granted, ought not to be cancelled in a
mechanical manner. However, an
unreasoned or perverse order of bail is
always open to interference by the superior
court. If there are serious allegations
against the accused, even if he has not
misused the bail granted to him, such an
order can be cancelled by the same Court
that has granted the bail. Bail can also be
revoked by a superior court if it transpires
that the courts below have ignored the
relevant material available on record or not
looked into the gravity of the offence or the
impact on the society resulting in such an
order . In P v. State of M.P. (2022) 15 SCC
211 decided by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court [authored by one of us (Hima Kohli,
J.)] has spelt out the considerations that
must weigh with the Court for interfering in
an order granting bail to an accused under
Section 439(1) CrPC in the following
words : (SCC p. 224, para 24)
“24. As can be discerned from the above
decisions, for cancelling bail once
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
30/48
granted, the court must consider
whether any supervening
circumstances have arisen or the
conduct of the accused post grant of
bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit
him to retain his freedom by enjoying
the concession of bail during trial
[Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana,
(1995) 1 SCC 349 . To put it
differently, in ordinary
circumstances, this Court would be
loathe to interfere with an order
passed by the court below granting
bail but if such an order is found to
be illegal or perverse or premised on
material that is irrelevant, then such
an order is susceptible to scrutiny
and interference by the appellate
court.”
Considerations for setting aside bail orders.
28. The considerations that weigh with the
appellate court for setting aside the bail
order on an application being moved by the
aggrieved party include any supervening
circumstances that may have occurred after
granting relief to the accused, the conduct of
the accused while on bail, any attempt on
the part of the accused to procrastinate,
resulting in delaying the trial, any instance
of threats being extended to the witnesses
while on bail, any attempt on the part of the
accused to tamper with the evidence in any
manner. We may add that this list is only
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
31/48
illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the
court must be cautious that at the stage of
granting bail, only a prima facie case needs
to be examined and detailed reasons relating
to the merits of the case that may cause
prejudice to the accused, ought to be
avoided. Suffice it is to state that the bail
order should reveal the factors that have
been considered by the Court for granting
relief to the accused.
29. In Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9
SCC 321, a three-Judge Bench of this Court,
has observed that the power to grant bail
under Section 439 CrPC is of wide
amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions
Court, as the case may be, is bestowed with
considerable discretion while deciding an
application for bail. But this discretion is
not unfettered. The order passed must
reflect due application of judicial mind
following well-established principles of law.
In ordinary course, courts would be slow to
interfere with the order where bail has been
granted by the courts below. But if it is
found that such an order is illegal or
perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant
material, the appellate court would be well
within its power to set aside and cancel the
bail. (Also refer: Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6
SCC 338; Narendra K. Amin v. State of
Gujarat (2008) 13 SCC 584.”
(Emphasis supplied).
36 . From the aforequoted judgments, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
32/48
following propositions of law emerge. Firstly , the cancellation
of bail already granted requires cogent and overwhelming
supervening circumstances, such as misuse of the liberty,
tampering with the evidence, intimidation of the witnesses or
evasion of justice, and cannot be founded upon a mere re-
appreciation of the material which was before the Court at the
time of the grant. Secondly , the annulment, by the superior
Court, of an order granting bail which is illegal, perverse,
founded upon irrelevant considerations or passed in ignorance
of the relevant material, is concerned with the defects existing at
the time of the grant itself, and may be exercised irrespective of
any subsequent misconduct on the part of the accused. It is upon
this twofold touchstone that the present application falls to be
examined.
37. The law governing the grant of bail by a
subordinate Court after the rejection of the prayer for bail of the
same accused by the superior Court is no longer res integra , as
long ago as in State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota
Subha Rao (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
judicial discipline, propriety and comity demand that an order
enlarging an accused on bail, after the rejection of his earlier
prayers, must record a substantial change in the fact-situation,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
33/48
and that when one speaks of change, one means a material and
substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision
and not merely cosmetic changes which are of little or no
consequence, for, otherwise, the subsequent order amounts to
virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a
change in the fact-situation.
38 . In Bimla Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.
(supra) , where a Magistrate had granted provisional bail to an
accused of murder despite the rejection of two successive bail
applications by the High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed as under:-
“2. In view of the fact that the Judicial
Magistrate at a later stage has himself
cancelled the bail, it is not necessary for
us to pass any order with regard to the
petitioner’s prayer for cancellation of bail
but the disturbing feature of the case is
that though two successive applications of
the accused for grant of bail were rejected
by the High Court yet the learned
Magistrate granted provisional bail. The
course adopted by the learned Magistrate
is not only contrary to settled principles of
judicial discipline and propriety but also
contrary to the statutory provisions. (See
in this connection Shahzad Hasan Khan
case (1987) 2 SCC 684. The manner in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
34/48
which the learned Magistrate dealt with
the case can give rise to the apprehensions
which were expressed by the complainant
in her complaint, which was treated by this
Court as a writ petition and is being dealt
with as such. In the course that we are
adopting, we would not like to comment
upon the manner in which the learned
Magistrate dealt with the case any more at
this stage. We, in the facts and
circumstances stated above, direct that a
copy of this order be sent to the Chief
Justice of the Patna High Court for taking
such action on the administrative side as
may be deemed fit by him.”
39. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while emphasising the requirement of indicating reasons
for the grant of bail where the accused stands charged of a
serious offence, held in categorical terms as under:-
“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of
bail is very well settled. The court granting
bail should exercise its discretion in a
judicious manner and not as a matter of
course. Though at the stage of granting
bail a detailed examination of evidence
and elaborate documentation of the merit
of the case need not be undertaken, there is
a need to indicate in such orders reasons
for prima facie concluding why bail was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
35/48
being granted particularly where the
accused is charged of having committed a
serious offence. Any order devoid of such
reasons would suffer from non-application
of mind. It is also necessary for the court
granting bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors also
before granting bail; they are:
(a) The nature of accusation and
the severity of punishment in case
of conviction and the nature of
supportingevidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the
complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the
court in support of the charge. (See
Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC
598 and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001)
6 SCC 338.
xxx
20. Before concluding, we must note that
though an accused has a right to make
successive applications for grant of bail
the court entertaining such subsequent
bail applications has a duty to consider
the reasons and grounds on which the
earlier bail applications were rejected. In
such cases, the court also has a duty to
record what are the fresh grounds which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
36/48
persuade it to take a view different from
the one taken in the earlier applications.
In the impugned order we do not see any
such fresh ground recorded by the High
Court while granting bail. It also failed to
take into consideration that at least on
four occasions order refusing bail has
been affirmed by this Court and
subsequently when the High Court did
grant bail, this Court by its order dated
26-7-2000 cancelled the said bail by a
reasoned order. From the impugned order,
we do not notice any indication of the fact
that the High Court took note of the
grounds which persuaded this Court to
cancel the bail. Such approach of the High
Court, in our opinion, is violative of the
principle of binding nature of judgments of
the superior court rendered in a lis
between the same parties, and in effect
tends to ignore and thereby render
ineffective the principles enunciated
therein which have a binding character.”
(emphasis supplied).
40. The vice of the omission of the Court
granting bail to advert to the reasons which impelled the
superior Court to decline bail has recently been explained by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohseen v. State of U.P.
& Anr. , reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 919 , wherein it has
been held as under:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
37/48
“23. The first and most fundamental infirmity
in the impugned order is the complete
absence of any engagement with the order
dated 27.01.2025 passed by this Court in
SLP (Crl) No.18256 / 2024 whereunder the
first bail of the respondent no.2 was
cancelled. The impugned order does not
advert to the reasons that impelled this
Court to cancel bail, nor does it identify
any supervening circumstances or changed
factual matrix that might justify a
departure from the position adopted by this
Court in the earlier round.
24. While there is no absolute bar against a
High Court granting bail to an accused
whose bail was previously cancelled by
this Court, the grant of bail must be
supported by reasons demonstrating
either a change in circumstances or the
existence of fresh grounds not considered
by this Court at the time of cancellation .”
(emphasis supplied).
41. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid
principles, the impugned order, in the considered opinion of this
Court, cannot be sustained, for more reasons than one.
42. In the first place, the impugned order has
been passed in complete disregard of the two orders of the
Coordinate Benches of this Court rejecting the prayer for
regular bail of the opposite party no.2. The impugned order does
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
38/48
not advert to, much less discuss, the reasons which impelled the
Coordinate Bench, vide the order dated 13.05.2025, to decline
bail, namely, the finding recorded upon a perusal of the F.I.R.
and the case diary that all the accused are involved in the
commission of the murder of the deceased, the strong nexus
emerging from paragraph nos. 25, 29 and 32 of the case diary,
the gravity of the offence, the criminal antecedents of the
accused and the institution of Alamganj P.S. Case No.1109 of
2024. What is graver still, the impugned order falls totally silent
on the second rejection dated 26.09.2025 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.56740 of 2025, and its solitary recital of the
bail history, as noticed hereinabove, conflates the date of the
first rejection with the number of the second application. An
order which cannot correctly recount the bail history of the
accused, disclosed in the bail petition itself, can scarcely be
credited with having considered the reasons underlying the
earlier rejections, as mandated by Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
(supra) and Mohseen (supra) .
43. Further from the perusal of the impugned
order, it is clear that the Trial Court has failed to record any
substantial change in the fact-situation intervening between the
rejection dated 26.09.2025 and the impugned order dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
39/48
28.03.2026, having a direct impact upon the earlier decision of
this Court. The framing of the charge and the grant of bail to the
co-accused both predates the second rejection and, therefore,
already stood weighed when this Court found no fresh ground
on 26.09.2025. The only developments in the interregnum were
the examination of six of the charge-sheeted witnesses and the
passage of time. Neither of these, singly or cumulatively,
constitutes a substantial change in the fact-situation of the
nature contemplated in Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao
(supra) . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in X v. State of Rajasthan
(supra) , had held that the progress of the trial, once the
prosecution has begun examining its witnesses, is a
circumstance which ought to make the Court loath to entertain
the prayer for bail in a serious offence like murder, and not a
circumstance in aid of it:-
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial
commences and the prosecution starts
examining its witnesses, the Court be it the
Trial Court or the High Court should be
loath in entertaining the bail application of
the accused.
15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two
things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after
the charge is framed and just before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
40/48
victim is to be examined by the prosecution
before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted
once the recording of the oral evidence of
the victim is complete by looking into some
discrepancies here or there in the
deposition and thereby testing the
credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not
a correct practice that the Courts below
should adopt. Once the trial commences, it
should be allowed to reach to its final
conclusion which may either result in the
conviction of the accused or acquittal of the
accused. The moment the High Court
exercises its discretion in favour of the
accused and orders release of the accused
on bail by looking into the deposition of the
victim, it will have its own impact on the
pending trial when it comes to appreciating
the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in
the event if the trial gets unduly delayed
and that too for no fault on the part of the
accused, the Court may be justified in
ordering his release on bail on the ground
that right of the accused to have a speedy
trial has been infringed.”
44 . The import of the impugned order, therefore,
is that the learned Trial Court has, in effect, sat in review over
the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Court dated
13.05.2025 and 26.09.2025, a course wholly impermissible in
law, and one which the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Bimla Devi
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
41/48
(supra) had characterised as contrary not only to the settled
principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also to the
statutory provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Netsity
Systems (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported as 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2079 , while deprecating a similar course, has
enumerated the grounds of interference by the superior Court,
namely, perversity, illegality, inconsistency with law and
relevant factors not having been taken into consideration, and
has emphasised the level of weightage which the decisions of
the superior Courts must be accorded by the Courts below.
45. The plea of parity, which is the pivot of the
impugned order, is misplaced on a twofold counts. The doctrine
of parity is not a mechanical rule of thumb as held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod (supra) . In
deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused,
their position in relation to the incident and to the victims, is of
utmost importance, and the grant of bail on an unanalysed plea
of parity, in disregard of the material distinguishing the case of
the accused, itself renders the order perverse, as held in Neeru
Yadav (supra) .
46. The roles of the opposite party no.2 and of
the co-accused Dharmendra Kumar are not similar. The opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
42/48
party no.2 is the solitary accused named in the F.I.R., with a
motive narrative recorded therein which predates and stands
independent of the confessional statements, namely, the land
dispute, the adjacency of the houses, the design to grab the
newly built house of the informant and the threat that the wife of
the deceased would be widowed. According to the prosecution
story he is the alleged procurer and financier of the contract
killing ( supari giver), at whose instance and for whose benefit,
on the prosecution case, the entire conspiracy was set in motion,
having allegedly met the shooter about four months prior to the
occurrence and paid him Rs.5,000/- as advance. It is noted that
on the earlier occasions, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, on
the submission of the learned counsel appearing therein, had
recorded the five criminal antecedents of the opposite party no.2
as also the threats to the side of the informant, forming the
subject matter of Alamganj P.S. Case No.1109 of 2024. The co-
accused Dharmendra Kumar, per contra , is not named in the
F.I.R and no overt act of firing was attributed to him. He had
disclosed two antecedents. Therefore, in the considered opinion
of this Court, the role attributed to the opposite party no.2 being
distinct from, and graver than, that of the co-accused enlarged
on bail, parity could not have been claimed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
43/48
47. More importantly, the plea of parity stood
foreclosed by the order of the Coordinate Bench dated
26.09.2025. The co-accused Dharmendra Kumar was enlarged
on bail on 19.08.2025. It is thereafter, on 26.09.2025, that the
Coordinate Bench of this Court rejected the second prayer of the
opposite party no.2, holding that there was no fresh ground to
reconsider his prayer. The release of Dharmendra Kumar was,
therefore, a circumstance in existence, and available to be urged,
when this Court declined bail to the opposite party no.2 on the
second occasion. The superior Court having, thus, declined to
treat the release of the co-accused as a ground for the
enlargement of the opposite party no.2, it was not open to the
Trial Court to fundamentally base the impugned order on this
ground. In doing so, the Trial Court has sat in review over the
order of this Court. The decision of this Court in Babuni Yadav
(supra) , relied upon in the impugned order, presupposes that the
co-accused enlarged on bail by the superior Court stands on a
similar footing, and can have no application where the roles are
dissimilar and where the superior Court has itself, subsequent to
the release of the co-accused, declined bail to the accused
claiming parity. It is also not out of place to notice that the
prayers for bail of every other co-accused, namely, Sunny
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
44/48
Kumar, Rohit Pandey and Shiv Kumar @ Hira Choudhary, have
been consistently rejected by this Court, the second rejection of
the co-accused Sunny Kumar having been recorded on
01.04.2026.
48. The learned Trial Court has weighed the
confessional statements recorded in paragraph nos. 25, 29 and
32 of the case diary against the absence of call detail records
(paragraph no. 51), the statement of the tea vendor (paragraph
no. 63) and the statements of the witnesses regarding the
advance of Rs.20 lakh (paragraph nos. 56 to 60), and has, upon
such weighment, in effect returned a finding that the implication
of the opposite party no.2 is unworthy of credence. It is well
settled that at the stage of considering a prayer for bail, the
Court is not to embark upon a meticulous examination of the
merits, and the credibility, admissibility and inter se weight of
the material collected during the investigation, including the
evidentiary worth of the confessional statements of the co-
accused, are matters reserved exclusively for the trial, as held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran (supra) and reiterated in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) , wherein the contention
founded upon the alleged inadmissibility of the confession of a
co-accused was held to be too premature to be accepted at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
45/48
stage of bail. The exercise undertaken by the Trial Court
amounts to a premature appreciation of the evidence and a
virtual mini-trial at the stage of bail.
49 . The impugned order is wholly silent on
Alamganj P.S. Case No.1109 of 2024, instituted from the
informant’s side upon the allegation that, even while the
opposite party no.2 was in custody, his nephew and an associate
threatened the family of the informant with death for the
withdrawal of the present case, a circumstance which was
expressly noticed by the Coordinate Bench in its order dated
13.05.2025.
50 . The submissions advanced on behalf of the
opposite party no.2 do not carry the matter any further. The
submissions founded upon Dolat Ram (supra), Himanshu
Sharma (supra) and Abdul Basit (supra) proceed upon a
misconception of the nature of the present application. The
present is not a case of cancellation of bail on the ground of
supervening misconduct, in which event the absence of any
violation of the conditions of bail would have assumed
significance, rather the present application invokes the power of
this Court to annul an order granting bail which is perverse,
founded upon considerations untenable in law and passed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
46/48
ignorance of the relevant material, and, as held in Puran
(supra), Neeru Yadav (supra) and State of Karnataka v. Sri
Darshan (supra) , such power is distinct and does not require
any supervening circumstance to be shown and established.
51. The period of custody of the opposite party
no.2 and his disability are, no doubt, circumstances deserving of
sympathy, but they are circumstances which existed, and were
available to be urged, when the Coordinate Bench of this Court
rejected his prayer for bail for the second time on 26.09.2025,
and they cannot, in law, clothe the Trial Court with the authority
to grant what this Court had already declined.
52 . For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 is
perverse and unsustainable in law, having been passed in
disregard of the orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Court
dated 13.05.2025 and 26.09.2025, in ignorance of the relevant
material on record, including Alamganj P.S. Case No.1109 of
2024 and without recording any substantial and material change
in the fact-situation and rather having been passed placing
reliance upon a misplaced and foreclosed plea of parity and
upon a premature appreciation of the material collected in
course of the investigation. The impugned order, therefore,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
47/48
cannot be sustained and the bail granted thereunder is liable to
be cancelled.
53. In the result, the present application is
allowed, the impugned order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the
District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City, in Sessions
Trial No.1309 of 2025, arising out of Alamganj P.S. Case
No.895 of 2024, enlarging the opposite party no.2, Sanjeet
Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav, on bail, is set aside. The bail granted
to the opposite party no.2 vide the impugned order dated
28.03.2026 is hereby cancelled and the bail bonds furnished by
him, also stand cancelled. The opposite party no.2 shall
surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of one
week from today, failing which the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Patna, shall take all necessary steps to secure his arrest
and commit him to custody.
54 . The learned Trial Court is directed to
proceed with the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this order, without being
influenced by any observation made herein.
55. It is made abundantly clear that the
observations made hereinabove, including those touching upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34622 of 2026 dt.10-07-2026
48/48
the material collected in course of the investigation, are
confined to the consideration of the present application and shall
not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits
of the case, which shall be decided by the learned Trial Court
uninfluenced by the same.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 06.07.2026
Uploading Date 13.07.2026
Transmission Date 13.07.2026