Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6571/2026dismissed

Ravindra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-09Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6571 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAPAKAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ravindra Kumar Son of Arvind singh @ Arvind Kumar Singh Resident of village- Khilwat, Ps- Bidupur, Dist- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhubala Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Devi, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The defect(s) as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored.

3. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Rajapakar P.S. Case No.63 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 of Arms Act.

4. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.37238 of 2025, which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of regular bail

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6571 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026 2/2 arises out of Rajapakar P.S. Case No.63 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under sections 25(1-b), a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. There is recovery of one country made pistol and live cartridges from the petitioner, who is accused in 23 more similar and serious criminal cases. The petitioner in in custody since 20.02.2025.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial, out of six witnesses, two witnesses have been examined.

6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has proceeded, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) mdrashid/- U T