Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9971/2026dismissed

Pappu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9971 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2024 Thana- THAKRAHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Pappu Ram S/O Late Pramod Ram R/O Village- Shishwania Ward no. 9, Police Station- Thakraha, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1, 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 Thakraha P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 379, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 69654 of 2024 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Thakraha P.S. Case No. 18 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 379, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner is the assailant of the deceased. He has given Dabiya blow on the head of the deceased. The deceased sustained injury and has died. The post-mortem report supports the factum of head

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9971 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2 injury. The petitioner is in jail since 25.04.2024.

4. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

5. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has clean antecedent and he is custody since 25.04.2024. Learned counsel further submits that three out of six witnesses have been examined.

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

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