Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10115/2026dismissed

Sunny Kumar @ Sanam v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10115 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2025 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Sunny Kumar @ Sanam S/o Ravindra Prasad RO Village- Manikpur, PSParwalpur, District- Nalanda Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Ashok Kumar 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 Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 117 of 2025 registered for the offence under Section 309(4) of B.N.S. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71355 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2 . This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Parwalpur P.S. Case No.117 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under section 309(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3 . Unknown criminals looted one motorcycle and one mobile phone from the informant.

4 . During investigation, the name of the petitioner has come in the case. The looted mobile has been recovered from him. The petitioner has given a selfinculpatory statement that he has participated in the crime. He is in custody since 09.07.2025.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10115 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2 5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased the looted mobile and he was not a party to the loot.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has clean antecedent and he is custody since 09.07.2025. 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