Dilip Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39452 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2025 Thana- Chakmesi District- Samastipur ====================================================== Dilip Kumar S/O Late Shiv Kumar Mahto @ Shiv Kumar Mahto Residents of Village- Mutlupur, Police Station- Hattha, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-07-2026 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 Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 122 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(6) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 19.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 78804 of 2025 which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 122 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(6) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, some unknown persons looted a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the Customer Service Point and they caused injuries to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39452 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026 2/2 the informant. During investigation, the name of the petitioner has come and the cloth of the petitioner was recovered from his house which was used at the time of committing crime which has been captured in the CCTV Footage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody since 12.08.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner has criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has not stated after submission of charge-sheet.

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

6. The Court below is directed to frame the charges and proceed with the trial.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T