Patna High CourtCR. MISC./72748/2025dismissed

Santosh Mahto @ Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72748 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2023 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Santosh Mahto @ Santosh Kumar Son of Ratan Mahto @ Ram Ratan Mahto R/o Village- Sisawa, Ajagari, P.S.- Banjaria (Banjariya), District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Ranjana Srivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Suman Kumari Singh, 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 Motihari Mufassil P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21121 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners have looted motorcycle and mobile

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72748 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 phone of the informant on gun point.

4. The name of the petitioner has come in the self-inculpatory statement of the coaccused and there are other materials also against the petitioner. The petitioner has criminal antecedent also.

5. The petitioner is in jail since 18.11.2024.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

8. If the trial of the petitioner is delayed due to the fault of the prosecution side then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial has started and charges have been framed.

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