Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17257/2026dismissed

Ribhu @ Saumayak Kumar @ Samyak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-08Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17257 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2025 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ribhu @ Saumayak Kumar @ Samyak Kumar S/O Satyendra Kumar Resident of Village- Usri Bazar, Shikarpur, Police Station- Shahpur, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-05-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 146 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(2) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 70119 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 146 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304(2) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals are said to have snatched gold chain and locket from the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17257 of 2026(3) dt.08-05-2026 2/2

4. The petitioner is in custody since 22.04.2025.

5. The name of the petitioner has come during investigation in the self-inculpatory statement of the coaccused. He is accused in three more similar and serious cases.

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

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till date, only charge has been framed and the trial has not yet commenced.

4. Without waiting for the trial to commence, the petitioner has moved this Court merely after six months, which is no appreciated. This Court will not interfere in such cases where bail applications have been rejected and subsequently, without any change in circumstances, these bail applications are filed.

5. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that the charge has already been framed, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

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