Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73712/2025bail rejected

Amrit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-16Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73712 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2023 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Amrit Kumar Umesh Kumar Das @ Umesh Das Resident of Village - Mela Road, Naya Tola, P.S. - Sitamarhi, Dist. - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brahmaputra Singh Ishu, Adv.

Mrs.Poonam Kumari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with B.P. No.967 of 2025, arising out of Riga P.S. Case No.415 of 2023 lodged under Section 392 of the IPC pending before the Court of the ACJM-VI, Sitamarhi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.77709 of 2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2024 and charge has already been framed. He further submits that another co-accused has been granted bail vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.13810 of 2024.

5. Counsel further submit that progress report of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73712 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026 2/2 trial has been called for.

6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the rejection order, every aspect has been taken into consideration on merit. He further submits that the looted articles have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and in the commission of crime, the motorcycle of the petitioner was being used. In this regard, categorical statement has come in the case diary in paragraph 53, 54 and 84.

7. From the case diary, it transpires that charge has been framed and two prosecution witnesses have been examined.

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

9. However, Trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) prakashmani/- U