Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9810/2026dismissed

Niraj Das v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9810 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-766 Year-2023 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Niraj Das Son of Jogi Das Resident of Harijan Tola, Dumrama, Police Station - Amarpur, District - Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md.Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shailendra Kumar, 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 Amarpur P.S. Case No. 766 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 392, 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45326 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 Amarpur P.S. Case No. 766 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 392, 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals have looted one mobile phone and one scooty. The name of the petitioner has surfaced during investigation in the self inculpatory statement of coaccused, on whose statement the mobile was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9810 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2 offence. The petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

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

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

8. If the trail is delayed, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has clean antecedent and he is custody since 27.02.2025. 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