Patna High Court – Orders
Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Ajay Pandey @ Ajay … vs The State Of Bihar on 8 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25701 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2018 Thana- KARJA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Pandey @ Ajay Pandey @ Ajay Kumar Son of Late Sita
Ram Pandey Resident of Village - Ram Bagh Chouri, P.S. - Mithanpura,
District - Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate
Mrs.Anita Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Chitrangda Mustafa, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
9 08-07-2026
Heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the
State duly assisted by Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The accused/petitioner, who is not named in the
FIR, is in custody since 05.11.2018 to 08.02.2019 and from
19.02.2025, i.e. total period of one year seven months and
twenty one days, seeks regular bail in connection with Karja
P.S. Case No. 199 of 2018 (Sessions Trial No. 452/2024)
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364
and added sections 302, 120(B) & 201 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
2/13
Allegation against the petitioner
3. Petitioner alleged to involve in committing murder
of son of the informant as during investigation petitioner, soon
before the death of son of the informant was repeatedly
contacted from mobile no. 7361907855 with deceased which
was alleged to be in use of petitioner/accused.
Brief History of earlier Bail Petition preferred by
the accused/petitioner
4. As several multiple efforts has been made by this
petitioner with prayer of bail before this Court and Hon’ble
Supreme Court, therefore, it would be apposite here to
mention all such previous proceedings for sake of clarity and
convenience:
(i) After arrest in the present case, petitioner preferred
first petition of regular bail to this Court through Cr. Misc.
No. 3386/2019, which was disposed on 08.02.2019, where
petitioner was granted regular bail with certain conditions
imposed by this Court, as such petitioner remained in custody
total of about three months and three days, since 05.11.2018.
In this petition, petitioner mentioned his total criminal
antecedent as three (3);
(ii) Aggrieved with aforesaid order, first informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
3/13
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court through Criminal
Appeal No. 1755 of 2019 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.
6793 of 2019], wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated 25.11.2019, set-aside the order dated 08.02.2019, as
mentioned aforesaid, for the reason that petitioner did not
disclosed his true criminal antecedents as he was involved in
five (5) criminal cases. A request was made to this High Court
to decide the bail application afresh after hearing the
complainant;
(iii) After the aforesaid direction of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, petitioner preferred second bail petition
before this Court, which was registered as Cr. Misc. No. 3386
of 2019, wherein vide its order dated 05.01.2022, one of the
learned coordinate Bench of this Court, considering the
mistake as bonafide, allowed this petitioner to remain on bail
but while authoring order of bail, it was observed that
petitioner remains in custody total of two years and ten
months i.e. from 05.11.2018 to 24.09.2021;
(iv) The first informant again challenged the aforesaid
order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court through Criminal
Appeal No. 1679 of 2022 [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 5600 of 2022], raising submission that the custody period
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
4/13
was recorded wrongly as this petitioner has remained in
custody for about three months only. Taking note of the
aforesaid mistake, Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order dated
26.09.2022 again set-aside the impugned order dated
05.01.2022 as passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. Cr. Misc.
No. 3386 of 2019, and remanded the case for a fresh
consideration of bail petition of the petitioner on the basis of
correct facts with request to consider all contentions that may
be raised on behalf of the State as well as complainant,
however, petitioner was allowed to continue on interim
regular bail till the High Court decides his bail application
afresh;
(v) This time, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna was requested to place this matter
before different Bench;
(vi) It is how this matter was assigned to this Court by
the then Hon’ble Chief Justice and thereafter petitioner filed
bail petition, which was registered as Cr. Misc. No.
3386/2019. Considering all such contentions and taking note
of submission of the petitioner and first informant afresh, this
Court rejected the prayer of bail of the petitioner vide its order
dated 04.05.2023;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
5/13
(vii) Now, the aforesaid order was challenged by the
accused/petitioner before Hon’ble Supreme Court through
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6907 of 2023, wherein
vide order dated 29.02.2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court vacated
the interim protection granted to the petitioner and directed
him to surrender forthwith before the learned trial court with
liberty to apply afresh after the deposition of the family
members of the victim is complete, and also directed the
learned trial court to make an endeavour to conclude the
statements of the private witnesses, including the family
members of the victim within four months;
(viii) After the aforesaid direction of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, instead of immediate surrender before the
learned trial court, petitioner/accused remain absconded for
long one year and was put behind the bar on 19.02.2025 only;
(ix) Immediately after passing of one month of his
arrest, the petitioner preferred bail petition before this Court
through Cr. Misc. No. 24554/2025, which was listed before
this Court as “Tied-Up”. During course of argument,
considering that present petition was preferred prematurely as
four months’ time to examine the private witnesses including
the family members was not even passed, learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
6/13
appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the
petition, which was permitted to withdraw vide order dated
18.04.2025;
(x) Now, this petitioner preferred another bail petition
through Cr. Misc. No. 32907/2025 for grant of provisional
bail on the eve of marriage ceremony of his daughter, where
his prayer was again rejected by this Court vide its order dated
16.05.2025, by giving direction to the jail authority and
administration to make an arrangement for physical
participation of petitioner, in custody for two hours to perform
rituals related with ‘Kanyadan’ or in alternate to facilitate him
to perform the same through virtual mode on the occasion of
his daughter wedding from jail, however, this liberty was not
availed by the petitioner;
(xi) Now, the petitioner again preferred a bail petition
before this Court which was registered as Cr. Misc. No.
52181/2025, where during the course of argument, it
transpires that almost all the prosecution witnesses have been
examined and the case was fixed for examination of defence
witnesses, therefore, by taking note of the fag end of the trial,
the prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order
dated 09.02.2026.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
7/13
5. Having all such backgrounds, now the petitioner
preferred the present bail petition on the grounds that still this
matter is pending for examination of prosecution witnesses,
private and family members have already examined but trial is
not likely to conclude in near future.
Argument on behalf of the petitioner
6. At the outset, it is submitted by Ms. Nivedita
Nirvikar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner that the present petition preferred on twin grounds,
firstly, long period of custody as petitioner remains in
custody in this matter for about three months (previous
occasion) and continuously since 19.02.2025 i.e. total of
about one year and eight months, and, secondly, slow
progress of trial as still this matter is pending for examination
of prosecution witnesses.
7. Certainly, this Court is not in a position to re-
consider the merit, as all the available merits were duly
considered by this Court while rejecting the prayer of bail of
this petitioner through Cr. Misc. No. 3386 of 2019 dated
04.05.2023, which would be otherwise amounting to review
its own earlier order, which is not possible under law and,
therefore, merit out of referred paras of case diary as available
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
8/13
under para nos. 26, 29, 47, 49, 59, 90 & 93 by Ms. Nirvikar
was not taken care of again as same were already considered
while considering earlier bail petition that is Cr. Misc. No.
3386 of 2019.
8. Arguing in support of her submission that the trial
of this case cannot be concluded in near future, Ms. Nirvikar,
submitted that still one charge-sheet witness is left for his
complete examination and the petition of the petitioner under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned trial
court for re-examination of the I.O.
9. It is argued further that several important
witnesses like Ganour Kumar, Shivani and Bablu are required
to be examined in this matter, because co-accused Pankaj
Kumar categorically stated that he sold the SIM from his shop
to one Ganour Kumar, but said Ganour Kumar was not made
charge-sheeted witness. It is also pointed out that the name of
Bablu transpired in FIR itself, who could be otherwise a best
witness of the occurrence to link the circumstances, but he
was also not made charge-sheet witness by the prosecution in
this case. It is also submitted that Ganour Kumar himself
stated during investigation that Shivani is his daughter who
was using the mobile number 7361907855, but instead to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
9/13
examine Shivani, the police falsified the existence of Shivani
saying that the wife of petitioner was using the alleged mobile
phone under the name of Shivani and as such, petitioner
decided to file another petition under section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. for examination of these witnesses as their
examination is essentially required for just decision of this
case.
10. It is submitted by Ms. Nirvikar that the right of
fair trial cannot be taken away from the petitioner and,
therefore, in all such events as mentioned aforesaid, the
examination of prosecution witnesses may continue for years
but fairly conceded that till now there is no such petition
under section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court as to
examine the aforesaid witnesses.
11. It is submitted by Ms. Nirvikar that right to
“speedy trial” is a fundamental right of the petitioner as
available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which
appears compromised in view of aforesaid slow progress of
trial. In support of her submission, Ms. Nirvikar relied upon
the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary
State of Bihar, [1980 (1) SCC 98].
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
10/13
Submission on behalf of the Informant
12. Contrary to the aforesaid submission, learned
A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by Mr. Ashhar Mustafa,
learned counsel appearing for the first informant, submitted
that vide letter no. 68 dated 14.05.2026, out of 11 prosecution
witnesses, Nine (9) witnesses have been examined and two
witnesses namely, Chandan Pandey and Nunu Kumar Sharma
are yet to be examined. Prosecution evidence was closed by
the learned trial court. It was only on the petition of the
petitioner, the learned trial court was pleased to allow the
petition under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for re-examination of
the I.O. of this case i.e. PW-9.
13. It is argued that there is no petition till date
under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for examination of Ganour
Kumar, Bablu and Shivani, as submitted aforesaid either by
the petitioner or by prosecution, therefore, it can be safely
said that almost all prosecution witnesses now examined in
this matter and there is no latches on the part of the State
agency and, as such, argument advanced by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner qua violation of fundamental right
of the petitioner, as submitted aforesaid, is not appears
convincing.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
11/13
14. Mr. Mustafa, learned counsel for the informant
relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Dablu Kujur Vs. State of Jharkhand
reported in (2024) 6 SCC 758 in support of submission that
bail should not be granted at fag end of trial, where in para
‘3’, Hon’ble Apex Court held that “In view of the above, we
are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, more
particularly, when the trial is at the fag end.”
15. It is submitted by Mr. Mustafa that the conduct
of petitioner categorically speaks that he made all possible
efforts to defeat investigation and the trial. In support of his
submission, Mr. Mustafa submitted that despite direction of
Hon’ble Supreme Court to surrender immediately, vide order
dated 29.02.2024 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No. 6907 of 2023 (arising out of impugned final judgment
and order dated 04.05.2023 in CRLMN No. 3386/2019
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna), petitioner
was absconding for long one year and was not surrendered
before the learned trial court and only after formation of
Special Investigation Team (in short ‘SIT’) he was arrested
and put behind the bar and, since then, he is in custody since
19.02.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
12/13
16. In this context, Mr. Mustafa pointed out that
petitioner is under habit to change his lawyer frequently
before the learned trial court, where for formulated reasons he
changed his advocate making progress of trial slow. In this
context, it is submitted that certainly petitioner cannot take
advantage of his own wrong. It is also pointed out that
petitioner earlier made an attempt to avail the benefit of bail
or even provisional bail on frivolous reasons because as per
his best information, there was no any such marriage of his
daughter. The petitioner is making all possible efforts to come
out from jail. This conduct of the petitioner suggest that upon
bail, he may run away from the court proceeding and it would
be difficult again to produce him before the court of law, who
not even honoured the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court
and remains absconded for one year and was arrested only
after formation of SIT.
Conclusion
17. Having heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties and after going through the materials
available on record and also taking note of the fact as the
conduct of the petitioner who even not honoured the order of
the Hon’ble Apex Court and despite direction, he remained
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25701 of 2026(9) dt.08-07-2026
13/13
absconding for one year whereafter he was arrested, coupled
with the fact that trial of this case is almost at its fag end, as
discussed aforesaid, accordingly, prayer of regular bail of the
petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
