Patna High Court – Orders
Ajit Paswan @ Ajeet Kumar Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 18 February, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10553 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2022 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui
======================================================
Ajit Paswan @ Ajeet Kumar Paswan Son of Kameshwar Paswan Resident of
Village - Gohar Nagar, P.S. - Sikandra, District - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026
Seen the office notes.
2. Regarding defect no. 1, the certified copy of the
I.O. has been filed by the learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner. So far as the defect no. 2 is concerned, the same is
ignored.
3. Heard Mr. P.N. Shahi, the learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned
counsel for the State.
4. This is the 3rd attempt on behalf of the petitioner.
The following order was passed on 03.10.2024 in Cr. Misc. No.
67270 of 2024:-:
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt for bail
of the petitioner as earlier such prayer was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10553 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/4rejected by order dated 07.08.2023 in Cr.
Misc. No. 41322 of 2023.
3. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No.
109 of 2022 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307,
504, 506, and 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. The following order was passed
on 07.08.2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 41322 of
2023 which reads as under:
” Heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned A.P.P
appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioner is languishing in
custody in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections
341, 323, 307, 504, 506/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
It is alleged against the
petitioner that he shot at the son of
the informant, as a result of which,
he sustained gunshot injuries on
his stomach and subsequently
succumbed to the injuries.
It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in this case.
For the alleged occurrence of
03.05.2022, the F.I.R was
registered on 07.05.2022 without
explaining the delay. The deceased
himself was a veteran criminal and
he might be killed by his rivals.
The petitioner is languishing in
custody since 19.05.2022. During
investigation, other witnesses have
given contradictory statement. A
statement has been made in para 3
of the petition that petitioner has
no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10553 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/4Learned A.P.P appearing on
behalf of the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submitted that there
is specific allegation against the
petitioner that he shot at the
deceased, as a result of which, he
died during treatment. The
postmortem report as well as the
witnesses have also supported the
case of the prosecution.
Considering the fact that there
is specific accusation against the
petitioner, this Court is not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner. The
prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner stands rejected.
The Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the
same at the earliest.”
5. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
in jail since 19.05.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submit that onewitness has been examined in
the trial and eight more witnesses are to be
examined.
7. In view of the fact that the trial has
begun and one witness has bee examined, this
application stands dismissed.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Jamui
is directed to produce the witnesses on the
date fixed so that the trial is not delayed.
9. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the District Judge, Jamui
and the Superintendent of Police, Jamui for
its compliance through FAX or e-mail
forthwith.”
5. Mr. Shahi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the last witness was examined on 28.11.2023 i.e.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10553 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
before passing of the order dated 03.10.2024 and thereafter no
witness has been examined though the Superintendent of Police,
Jamui was directed to produce the witnesses on the date fixed.
6. In these circumstances, the office is directed to
issue a notice to the Superintendent of Police, Jamui to explain
why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for non-
compliance of the order dated 03.10.2024.
7. The reply of the Superintendent of Police, Jamui
must be submitted before the next date of hearing.
8. Re-list this case after three weeks.
9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Jamui through FAX for its compliance
forthwith.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
