Dismissed¶25

Azad Sai @ Azad @ Azad Sah v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC24 Jun 2026CR. MISC./16224/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court bail refusal; Crl. Misc. No.16224 of 2026 (order dated 24-06-2026), Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey; Sections 302/34 IPC murder/common-intention case, Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.296 of 2024, District Saran; earlier bail rejected 03.03.2025; five prosecution witnesses examined, I.O. and informant pending, trial expected to conclude within six months; judicial custody since 04.06.2024; APP relied on 'X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr' (Apex Court), para 14; bail denied with liberty to renew after six months or upon examination of informant, whichever earlier.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused at this stage: having heard learned counsel for both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Judge is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. ¶25

Azad Sai @ Azad @ Azad Sah Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be released on bail in connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.296 of 2024 (offence under Sections 302/34, Indian Penal Code), where the prosecution case alleges he assaulted the deceased with a lathi on her head causing bleeding head injuries, the post-mortem shows head injury as the cause of death, five prosecution witnesses stand examined with only the I.O. and informant remaining, and the trial court reports conclusion within six months.

¶16

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Renewal liberty: the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded, or after the examination of the informant, whichever is earlier.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused at this stage — High Court of Judicature at Patna (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J), Criminal Miscellaneous No.16224 of 2026, order dated 24-06-2026, arising out of Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.296 of 2024, District Saran, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner Azad Sai @ Azad @ Azad Sah sought regular bail; the prosecution case alleges he assaulted the deceased with a lathi on her head causing bleeding head injuries, and the post-mortem records head injury as the cause of death. His earlier bail petition had been rejected vide order dated 03.03.2025. Per the trial-stage report, five prosecution witnesses have been examined with only the I.O. and the informant remaining, and the trial court reported that the trial will be concluded within six months; the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.06.2024. The learned APP opposed bail and relied on the Apex Court judgment in 'X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr', para 14 of which is reproduced in the order. Considering the facts and circumstances, the court recorded that it was not inclined to grant bail at this stage, but left the petitioner at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded, or after the examination of the informant, whichever is earlier.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16224 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2024 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

Azad Sai @ Azad @ Azad Sah S/o Makbul Sah @ Makbul Sai Resident of Village- Badalu Tola, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District- Saran

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Nath Ojha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶13

5 24-06-2026

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶15

APP for the State.

¶16

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.296 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.03.2025.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a report regarding stage of trial was called and from the report it is clear that till today altogether 5 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, only I.O. and the informant is remaining. Learned trial court has reported in its report that the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16224 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026 2/3

¶20

trial will be concluded within six months.

¶21

Now coming to the merit of this case, as per the case of the prosecution, there is allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted the deceased with lathi on her head due to which she has received bleeding head injuries and from perusal of the post-mortem report also it is clear that cause of death is the head injury.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.06.2024.

¶23

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and has submitted that the petitioner is the main assailant. Learned APP for the State has further submitted that the petitioner is the main assailant in the present case. He has also relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr wherein in para- ‘14’ , Hon’ble Apex Court has held which is being quoted hereunder:-

¶24

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.

¶25

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16224 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026 3/3

¶27

is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded or after the examination of informant, whichever is earlier.

¶28

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶29

durgesh/- U T

Azad Sai @ Azad @ Azad Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azad Sai @ Azad @ Azad Sah v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitu Devi @ Nitu Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Hariom Yadav @ Hariom Kumar Yadav @ Hariom Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nirbhay Kumar @ Nirbhay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar