Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9828/2026dismissed

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Mehta @ Ravi Kumar Mahto @ Ravi Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9828 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2024 Thana- DHAMDAHA District- Purnia ====================================================== Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Kumar Mehta @ Ravi Kumar Mahto @ Ravi Mehta S/O Shree Shivkant Singh @ Shreekant Mehta @ Shivakant Singh R/O Village/Mohalla- Koriyani Tola, Nehru Chowk, P.S- Dhamdaha, Distt.- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Diksha Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajiv Nayan, 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 Dhamdaha P.S. Case No. 141 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1b)a, 35 of the Arms Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27280 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application is for grant of regular bail in connection with Dhamdaha P.S. Case No.141 of 2024, registered for the offences under Sections 25(1b)a/35 of Arms Act.

3. As per the F.I.R., a fire arm and 40.50 gm of smack/brown sugar were recovered from the house of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2024 and he has six criminal antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9828 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2

5. Considering the criminal history of the petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of regular bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and only one out of four witnesses have been examined. Petitioner has six criminal antecedents.

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

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