Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16389/2025rejected

Sumit Chaudhary @ Sumit Choudhary @ Sumit Kumar Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-02Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16389 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2024 Thana- BHAIRAVSHTHAN District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sumit Chaudhary @ Sumit Choudhary @ Sumit Kumar Choudhary Son of Sanjay Kumar Choudhary @ Sanjay Choudhary R/O Vill- Sarbsima Ward No. 12, P.S.- Bhairab Asthan, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. On perusal of the records, it appears that this is the second bail application of the petitioner. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in Cr. Miscellaneous No.37397 of 2024 with an observation to renew his prayer for bail after completion of one year.

4. It appears that one year has been lapsed and the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail but he has directly

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16389 of 2025(2) dt.02-05-2025 2/2 came to this Court without pressing the present bail application in the Trial Court.

5. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the present bail application of the petitioner is again rejected with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court and the Trial Court is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same without being prejudiced by this order.

6. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is again rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Harshita/- U T