Mrityunjay Bhardwaj v. The State of Bihar
Court: Patna High Court
Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
Patna High Court judgment dated 2026-04-30. Mrityunjay Bhardwaj v. The State of Bihar. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20556 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -484 Year-2024 Thana- SAKRA District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Mrityunjay Bhardwaj Son of Dr. Ramsagar Mehta @ Ram Sagar Mehta Resident of Village- Mura Mohanpur, P. S. - Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 30-04-2026 Heard learned 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 /Sakra P. S. Case No. 484 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 103(1)/238 of the BNS. 3.
Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 09. 04. 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2505 of 2025, which reads as under: “Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sakra P. S. Case No. 484 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1)/238 of the BNS. 3. The petitioner is accused of killing the deceased. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 20556 of 2026(2) dt. 30-04-2026 2/2 4. During the investigation, the murder weapon i. e. Dab (a sharp-edged heavy weapon) has been recovered on the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner is in jail since 23. 09. 2024. 5. In view of the above, this application is dismissed. ” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that the charge has been framed on 17. 02. 2026. 5.
Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that the trial has started and no fresh ground for grant of bail is made out, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. 6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 7. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.