Patna High CourtCR. MISC./17886/2025dismissed

Lal Babu Ram @ Lal Babu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-30Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17886 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2024 Thana- KARAMCHAT District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Lal Babu Ram @ Lal Babu S/O Chandrama Ram Resident of villageMajhiyaon, P.O.- Sabar, P.S.- Sabar, District- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karmachat P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392/412 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 28.08.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 59003 of 2024, which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karmachat P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, three

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17886 of 2025(6) dt.30-01-2026 2/2 unknown criminals injured the informant and looted two mobile phones and Rs. 700/-.

4. One looted mobile phone has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in jail since 08.06.2024 having clean antecedent.

5. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the charges have been framed and therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail.

5. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that trial has started, no ground for review is made out. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T