Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48081/2025dismissed

Bhulchula @ Bhulchula Yadav @ Subhash Yadav @ Subhash Kumar @ Bhulchul Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48081 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-425 Year-2023 Thana- SUGAULI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Bhulchula @ Bhulchula Yadav @ Subhash Yadav @ Subhash Kumar @ Bhulchul Yadav S/o- Sheo Shankar Rai @ Shiva Sankar Ray R/o - Kanti Kushi, P.S - Kanti , District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP Mr. Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 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 Sugauli P.S. Case No. 425 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 05.10.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 69261 of 2024 which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No.425 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Unknown criminals committed a dacoity in Bandhan Bank, Motihari and looted more than Rs.3,00,000/-.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48081 of 2025(4) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 for the petitioner that the there is no recovery from the petitioner and no Test Identification Parade has been conducted.

5. The name of the petitioner has come in the selfinculpatory statement of co-accused Aftab Alam. Other materials have come against the petitioner to connect him with the crime. He has criminal antecedent also. The petitioner is in custody since 18.04.2024.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail.

7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

4. Sufficient materials have come during the investigation to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. The trial has started.

5. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T