Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14217/2026dismissed

Kamlesh Kumar @ Kashyap v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-25Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14217 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- NAANPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Kamlesh Kumar @ Kashyap S/o- Late Ramdev Sahani R/v- Tharuhat PsNanpur Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 09.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 41274 of 2025 which reads as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nanpur P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 309(6), 317(5)and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14217 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. The petitioner is accused of committing loot and has been identified in T.I. parade. The petitioner is in custody since 23.02.2025.

4. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed for the present."

4. Learned counsel further submits that the charge has been framed and the trial has started. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

5. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Ranjeet/- U T