Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19088/2026dismissed

Santu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-29Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19088 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2024 Thana- Hathiyav District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Santu Kumar S/o- Raju Yadav Vill- Bihta PS- Hathiyawan Dist- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rizwanul Haque, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Hathiyawan P.S. Case No. 70 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64042 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hathiyawan P.S.Case No. 70 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, the company Sharda Goods Carrier Pvt. Ltd has a Tripper Truck loaded with stone chips was being driven by one Sanjeet Mahto was missing and on search the vehicle was found in Sheikhpura in an abandoned condition.

4. The name of petitioner has surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Raghvendra Kumar, who along with other co-accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19088 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026 2/2 persons hatched a plan to rob the truck. The petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2025.

5. Considering the facts that the petitioner is alleged to have involved in killing the driver of the truck, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and charges have framed.

4. Considering the gravity of offence, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

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