Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20874/2026bail rejected

Rohit Kumar @ Chhotu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-11Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20874 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-431 Year-2024 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Rohit Kumar @ Chhotu S/O Gauri Shankar Prasad R/O Vill.- Nawa, P.S.- Phulwarisharif, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2026

1. 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. 431 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 304(2) and 112(2) of the BNS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of 11 cases and is in custody since 28.09.2024 and the informant alleges that on 12.07.2024, two bike borne criminals snatched his gold chain from his neck

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Md. Arsad in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that Md. Arsad had approached this court seeking regular bail by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20874 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 2/2 filing Cr. Misc. No.70519 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by a learned coordiante Bench. It is also submitted that petitioner because of his antecedents came to be implicated in the instant case.

5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and has antecedent of 11 cases, and if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner will abscond as charges have been framed as such trial has commenced.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T