Anandi Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36554 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2015 Thana- KHUSRUPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Anandi Paswan S/o Jhapsi Paswan R/o Village - Tilhar, P.S - Khushrupur, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anand Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner for regular bail in connection with Khushrupur P.S. Case No. 33 of 2015 registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 09.10.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 70071 of 2025 which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khushrupur P.S. Case No. 33/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner along with other miscreants are said to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36554 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026 2/2 have assaulted and looted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each from the informant and his driver.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. The name of the petitioner has come in the self-inculpatory statement of the co-accused Shankar Ram. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has four criminal antecedents in which he is on bail and he is in custody since 16.04.2025. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is involved in dacoity and carries four criminal antecedent, therefore, he should not be granted privilege of regular bail.

6. Considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the trial, charges have been framed and no witness has been examined till date.

5. Considering the nature of the accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands dismissed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T