Patna High CourtCR. MISC./64661/2025dismissed

Roushan Kumar @ Ritik Roushan v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-10Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64661 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2024 Thana- BELCHHI District- Patna ====================================================== Roushan Kumar @ Ritik Roushan S/o Kusheshwar Mahto @ Kusho Mahto @ Kusheshwar Prasad R/o Village - Gopalpur, P.S - Belchhi, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr.Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard learned Senior 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 Belchhi P.S. Case No. 117 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 09.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1508 of 2025, which reads as under:

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

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Belchhi P.S. Case No. 117 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, all the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64661 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026 2/2 accused persons including this petitioner went to the shop of the victim and started firing. The deceased sustained one gun shot injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when three persons have fired and only one injury has been caused to the victim therefore the petitioner deserves bail. He is in custody since 12.08.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. All the accused persons including this petitioner have fired at the deceased and one shot hit the deceased. It is a case of day light murder. The informant is the eye witness.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is dismissed."

4. From the report, it appears that the other accused persons who were on bail were avoiding appearance and therefore, charges could not be framed earlier. Now, the charges have been framed on 19.11.2025.

5. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

7. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T