Patna High Court
CR. MISC./59106/2026 of Surendra Rajbanshi Vs The State of Bihar on 21 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59106 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2006 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== Surendra Rajbanshi, S/o Late Amirak Rajbanshi, R/o Village- Kadwara, P.S- Sirdalla, Dist- Nawada.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59106 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2006 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ======================================================
Surendra Rajbanshi, S/o Late Amirak Rajbanshi, R/o Village- Kadwara, P.S- Sirdalla, Dist- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
Page 1 of 3
21-08-2026 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sirdalla P. S. Case No. 34 of 2026, registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The main submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner are that this is the second attempt by the petitioner to get the relief of regular bail and the fresh grounds for renewing the prayer are the petitioner's prolonged custody and the change in the stage of his trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 01.06.2025, and his trial has commenced with the framing of charges against him on 05.06.2026 thereafter, none of the prosecution witnesses has appeared for examination till date.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59106 of 2026(2) dt.21-08-2026
Page 2 of 3
4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail made by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner's prayer for bail has already been rejected on merits and his trial has commenced recently, as merely two to three months have elapsed since the framing of charges against him.
5. In view of the seriousness of the allegation, this court is not persuaded to take a different approach from that taken earlier. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
6. However, considering the petitioner's continued custody since 01.06.2025, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
Rajiv/- (Shailendra Singh, J) U T
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…