Patna High Court - Orders
Khalid Ansari vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22274 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2023 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Khalid Ansari (Male) aged about 25 years, son of Md. Yasin Ahmad, Resident
of village-Harpur, P.S.-Barhariya, District-Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
Ms.Kumari Anupam, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 04-04-2025Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Manjhagadh P.S. Case No. 195 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 10.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11055 of 2024, which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners of both the cases as mentioned above seek bail in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 195 of 2023 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22274 of 2025(2) dt.04-04-2025 2/2 registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the deceased, who was a bank cashier was killed in a broad day light by the accused persons.
4. It has come during investigation that the murder was committed by contract killers and they got Rs. 2 lakh for killing the deceased. Petitioners are the contract killers and this Court has rejected the case/s of other similarly situated co-accused person/s.
5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
7. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioners and conclude the same at the earliest."
4. In view of the above, the Court finds no ground to review its earlier order date 10.04.2024.
5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
6. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T