Patna High Court/9813/2026dismissed

Gaurav Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9813 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2025 Thana- Kavaiya District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Gaurav Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu S/O Akshay Singh R/O Vill.- Sadipur,P.S- Nardiganj, Dist- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== 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 Kabaiya P.S. Case No. 94 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 303(2), 319(2), 318(4), 317(5), 3(5) of B.N.S. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44016 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Kabaiya P.S. Case No.94 of 2025, registered for the offences under Sections 303(2), 319(2), 318(4), 317(5), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per the F.I.R., petitioner is said to have been involved in ATM fraud.

4. The petitioner is in custody since 02.04.2025 and he has two antecedents of similar nature.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9813 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2

6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has two criminal antecedent and he is custody since 02.04.2025. Learned counsel further submits that till now charges have not been framed.

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

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again with direction to the concerned court below to expedite the trial and frame the charges at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T