Patna High CourtCR. MISC./15371/2026dismissed

Md. Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-24Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15371 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Md. Chhotu S/o- Md. Sirajuddin Resident of Ranipatti Singhiyan, Ward No07 PS- Murliganj Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rupesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 560 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 309(6), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 25.06.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 38340 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 Murliganj P.S. Case No. 560 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 309(6), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15371 of 2026(2) dt.24-04-2026 2/2

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals tried to loot the victim/informant.

4. From the place of occurrence, the Pan Card of the petitioner has been recovered. The petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2024. The petitioner has criminal antecedent also.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedent also, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

7. If the trial is delayed, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail

4. It is submitted that in the trial, out of seven witnesses, one has been examined and the trial is progressing.

5. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T