Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30686/2026dismissed

Rupesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-06-19Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30686 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-97 Year-2024 Thana- BHAWANIPUR District- Purnia ====================================================== Rupesh Kumar S/o Sukhlal Mahato R/o- Haraili Sonvarsha, Ward No. 1, P.S. - Uda Kishunganj, Distt. - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-06-2026 Heard the learned Senior 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 Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 97 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and later on Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was added.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 01.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 26842 of 2025 which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Bhawanipur P.S. Case No.97 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code but, later on, sections 302, 201, 120-B and 379 of the Indian Penal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30686 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026 2/2 Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act were also added in the F.I.R.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner has participated in the loot and murder of the deceased. He is in custody since 09.10.2024.

4. During the investigation, materials have come to connect the petitioner with the crime in a planned manner.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

4. Mr. Agrawal, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 09.10.2024 and in the trial out of ten witnesses, only one witness has been examined; therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail.

5. Considering the nature of the accusation and the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands dismissed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T