Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67835/2024dismissed

Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67835 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2023 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna ====================================================== Vikash Kumar Son of Late Ramanand Prasad Resident Of VillageMehandiganj Pani Tanki Road, Ward No. 61, P.S.- Mahandiganj, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Majid Mahboob Khan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned Senior counsel for the informant.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 99 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 05.03.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 81211 of 2023 which reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67835 of 2024(16) dt.09-01-2026 2/2

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 99/2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is in custody since 03.05.2023.

3. Two persons have been killed by the petitioner and other criminals. Materials have come during the investigation to connect the petitioner with the crime.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this application for grant of bail is dismissed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deposition of the witnesses has been concluded.

5. Since the trial is on the verge of completion, this application for regular bail is rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T