Patna High Court - Orders
Sheikh Danish @ Danish Raza @ Danish vs The State Of Bihar on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75318 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2023 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Sheikh Danish @ Danish Raza @ Danish S/o Sheikh Rustam @ Mahto
Resident of village- Laxmipur Madhumalti, P.S- Sugauli, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Daroga Thakur S/o Late Devsharan Thakur R/o Village- Laxmipur
Madhumalti, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 21-04-2026Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 130/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 34 of the I.P.C. and later on Sections 376, 302, 201, 120B of I.P.C. and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was added subsequently.
3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant and thereafter, her dead body was found.
4. The name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of the re-statement of the informant. The petitioner was in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75318 of 2025(7) dt.21-04-2026 2/3 relationship with the victim and the victim had become pregnant and thereafter, the petitioner along with other co-accused namely, Shekh Daulat Ansari, Shekh Rustam and another criminal murdered the deceased and threw her body in the river.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. Learned counsel further submits that he has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 29.07.2025. It is next submitted that in the trial out of eight only four witnesses have been examined and the witnesses does not support the prosecution, therefore, the petitioner deserves the privilege of bail. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.
6. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539.
7. Considering the gravity of the offence and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75318 of 2025(7) dt.21-04-2026 3/3 same at the earliest.
9. Before parting with the order, I have to caution the Trial Judge, who was asked to send a report to this Court. The Trial Judge has not sent a proper report and has simply sent a report stating that the case is pending for evidence. It was the duty of the Trial Court to mention the stage of the case by saying that the charges were framed and the number of witnesses being examined. In future, he should be vigilant and should send the report, as asked by this Court, properly.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/-
U T