Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20028/2026dismissed

Golu Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-30Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20028 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2024 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Golu Kumar @ Abhishek Kumar Son of Sunil Pandey @ Sunil Kumar Pandey Resident of Village- Nara Parsauni, P.S.- Bhairoganj, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026 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 Harsiddhi P.S. Case No. 378 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 310(2) of the BNS.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 12.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 20796 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 Harsiddhi P.S. Case No. 378 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 310(2) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, 5 unknown criminals are said to have looted 7,98,000/- from Spandana Sfurti Finance Limited covering their faces with helmet, mask and towel.

4. The petitioner has been named in the self inculpatory statement of co-accused.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20028 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 2/2

5. The petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2024 and he claims to have clean antecedent.

6. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and also considering the fact that the bail application of one co-accused namely Vivek Kumar has already been rejected by this Court, this Court is also not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

4. In the trial, out of eight witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T