IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10643 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-895 Year-2024 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav Son of Surju Singh Resident of Tilhar, P.S.- Khusrupur, District -Patna, At P/A- Bajrangpuri Patligram Apartment, Gaighat, Bajrangpuri Shiv Mandir, Ps- alamganj, Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 21416 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-895 Year-2024 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== 1. Rohit Pandey @ Rohit kumar pandey Son of Munna Pandey Resident of Village- Khara Kuan, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, P.S. -Alamganj, District -Patna 2. Shiv Kumar @ Hira Chaudhary @ Shivshankar Chaudhary Son of manoj Kumar Resident of Village- Paschim Darwaza, New Sadak, Nawab Bahadur Road, P.S.- Khajekalan, Distt.- Patna, presently Naya Gaon, P.S.- Alamganj, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 10643 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N Sahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Roopkishan, Adovcate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 21416 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Roopkishan, Adovcate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 4 13-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10643 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2025 2/5 2. The petitioners are in custody in connection with Alamganj P.S Case No. 895 of 2024 from the Court of learned A.C.J.M, Patna City registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of B.N.S & 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution story in short is that, informant alleged that today at about 5 A.M. Sanjeet Yadav and other have murdered the husband of the informant due to land dispute, the informant also stated that her husband had said that Sanjeet Kumar was making pressure on him for registering the new constructed house at Bajrang puri. She also stated that Sanjeet Kumar along with others have threatened her husband along with firing. She further stated that her husband went to morning walk and during that time Sanjeet Kumar killed her husband. She also claimed that Sanjeet Yadav killed her husband due to land dispute. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute. It is further submitted that informant is not the eye witness only suspicion was raised against the petitioner as he has threatened the husband of the informant to execute sale deed in respect of his house. It is further submitted that during investigation one of the co-accused Dharmendra was arrested on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10643 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2025 3/5 the basis of CCTV footage & his confessional statement has been recorded in Para 25 of the case diary in which he disclosed that co-accused Sunny Kumar fired upon the victim, the Arms was supplied to him by co -accused Shiv Kumar and Rohit Pandey further the Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav has given 5000/- to him to killed Rajeev Ratan Gupta. 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. It is further submitted that petitioner namely, Rohit Pandey @ Rohit Kumar pandey is in custody since 18.10.2024 and he has got no criminal antecedent and petitioner, namely, Shiv Kumar @ Hira Chaudhary @ Shivshankar Chaudhary is in custody since 18.10.2024 and he has got one criminal antecedent. 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 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10643 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2025 4/5 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. weapons used in crime is recovered from the petitioner namely, Rohit Pandey @ Rohit Kumar pandey. He further submits that in paragraph 32 of the case diary i.e, confessional statement of Shiv Kumar, it is mentioned that weapons used in the murder of the deceased is given to petitioner namely, Rohit Pandey @ Rohit Kumar pandey by the petitioner, namely, Shiv Kumar @ Hira Chaudhary @ 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 is appears that weapons used in 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10643 of 2025(4) dt.13-05-2025 5/5 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. 8. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioners are hereby rejected. Mayank/- (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) U T