Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8568/2026dismissed

Ravindra Banara @ Rabindr Banara v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8568 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- BALIGAON District- Vaishali ====================================================== Ravindra Banara @ Rabindr Banara S/O Late Sonelal Rai R/O VillageBhagwanpur Kaiju, P.S- Patepur, Distt.- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramesh Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Baligaon P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26977 of 2025 which reads as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay.

2. The petitioner, who is in custody since 16.10.2024, seeks regular bail in connection with Baligaon P.S. Case No. 5 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals looted Rs. 64,000/-, and one mobile phone from the informant.

4. The petitioner is in custody since 16.10.2024. During investigation the name of the petitioner has come on the confessional statement of the co-accused. The petitioner is accused in 12 more similar and serious cases.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8568 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected. If the trial is delayed, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. "

3. It has very fairly been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that trial is progressing and out of seven charge-sheeted witnesses, three have already been examined.

4. In view of the fact that the trial is progressing and the considering the gravity of the offence, this Court finds no new ground to review its earlier order.

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