Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73528/2025dismissed

Prakash Kumar Das @ Parkash Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73528 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2024 Thana- BARHAT District- Jamui ====================================================== Prakash Kumar Das @ Parkash Kumar Das S/O Khago Ravidas R/o Vill.- Teliyadih, P.S.- Jhajha, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Barhat P.S. Case No. 55 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 89238 of 2024 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 Barhat P.S. Case No. 55 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, when the informant was returning to his house, six unknown criminals on gun point committed dacoity and snatched Rs. 2500/-, his bike and one mobile phone from the informant.

4. The petitioner has been found using the looted mobile by inserting another SIM. On the statement

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73528 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 of the petitioner, looted motorcycle has also been recovered from the co-accused.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and only two out of six witnesses have been examined.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T