Dismissed¶22

Govind Sahani @ Bablu Sahani @ Govind Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Sept 2025CR. MISC./17770/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 17770 of 2025, decided 19-09-2025 by Alok Kumar Pandey, J (oral order). Bail application in S.Tr. No. 904/2024 / Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 50/2023 (Sections 302, 34 IPC; Section 27 Arms Act) rejected. Key factors: petitioner in custody since 06.02.2023 (about 2.5 years); earlier bail rejected on merit on 10.05.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 85841 of 2023; eight witnesses examined per trial court report dated 04.09.2025 showing trial at fag end. Consequential direction to trial court to expedite trial. Counsel: Arvind Kumar and Raj Krishna Jha for petitioner; Nand Kishore Pd. (APP) for State. No precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

No bail relief granted to the petitioner; the trial court was directed to expedite the trial. ¶22

Govind Sahani @ Bablu Sahani @ Govind Kumar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17770 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2023 Thana- KADAMKUAN District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Govind Sahani @ Bablu Sahani @ Govind Kumar Son of Late Gopal Sahani R/O-Mohalla- Kazipur, Machhua Toli, Police Station- Kadamkuan, DistrictPatna.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. (APP) ======================================================

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

8 19-09-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.Tr. No. 904/2024 arising out of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 50/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶14

As per prosecution case, informant’s brother is said to have been hit by pellet fired from the pistol of petitioner. It is further alleged that the petitioner and others were found at the place of occurrence by the informant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the petitioner is not in any way connected with the alleged occurrence as he has been

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17770 of 2025(8) dt.19-09-2025 2/3

¶17

portrayed as accused of the present case, though the petitioner having four criminal antecedents. He further submits that petitioner has surrendered before the learned trial court and he was taken into custody on 06.02.2023 and nearly two years and six months have elapsed. He further submits that on the basis of CCTV footage seen by the police, informant was not found with his brother who was killed during the course of occurrence. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merit vide order dated 10.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85841 of 2023. He further submits that postmortem report also indicates that the bullet hit the stomach of the deceased which is totally inconsistent with the initial version of prosecution story.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from the initial version of prosecution story, the act of firing is directly attributable to the petitioner and the same is corroborated by the postmortem report of the deceased and hence, the petitioner does not deserve bail. He further submits that earlier prayer for bail of the present petitioner has already been rejected on merit vide order dated 10.05.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 85841 of 2023.

¶19

A report regarding stage of trial has been sought by

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17770 of 2025(8) dt.19-09-2025 3/3

¶21

this Court and in pursuance of the said direction, the trial court vide letter no. 62 dated 04.09.2025 has sent its report which reveals that eight witnesses have been examined.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation against the petitioner coupled with the postmortem report, materials available on record, earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected on merit and the trial of the case is at the fag end as is evident from the report contained at Flag ‘G’, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner is hereby rejected.

¶23

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.

¶24

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶25

amitkumar/-

Govind Sahani @ Bablu Sahani @ Govind Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Sahani @ Bablu Sahani @ Govind Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Sah Vs the State of Bihar

Subhash Thakur @ Subash Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Baudhu Safi Vs The State of Bihar

Doman Yadav @ Teju Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Narayan Singh Vs The State of Bihar