Patna High CourtCR. MISC./59019/2025dismissed

Pramod Tatma @ Pramod Rishideo v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-10Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59019 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Pramod Tatma @ Pramod Rishideo S/o Baldeo Tatma @ Baldeo Rishideo R/o vill - Bariyahi, ward o. 12, P.S.- Shankarpur, Distt.- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amarnath Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66430 of 2024, which reads as under:

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59019 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026 2/2

3. As per the prosecution case, one country made pistol and three live cartridges have been recovered from the petitioner.

4. The petitioner is accused in 11 more cases of similar and serious nature.

5. Considering the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges have been framed.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U