Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4252/2026dismissed

Gulshan Kumar @ Gulshan Chaudhary @ Gulshan Kumar Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-12Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4252 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- HALAI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Gulshan Kumar @ Gulshan Chaudhary @ Gulshan Kumar Chaudhary Son of Late Lalan Choudhary R/o Village - Kaua, P.S. - Halai, Dist. - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mirtyunjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Halai P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 309(4), 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 27 of the Arms Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21396 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Halai P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 309(4), 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Sections 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, Rs. 2,45,000/-,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4252 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2 ATM cards etc., have been looted by unknown persons.

4. The informant has identified the petitioner in the T.I.P. and the petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2024. Petitioner has three criminal antecedents also.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents and he is custody since 13.12.2024.

4. Considering the gravity of offence, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T