Patna High CourtCR. MISC./80322/2025dismissed

Prem Sagar Kumar @ Prem Sagar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80322 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Prem Sagar Kumar @ Prem Sagar S/O Molchandra Mandal @ Mulchand Mandal @ Birchand Kumar Resident of Village- Gangapur Ward No. 06, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamal Kishore Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard learned 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 Murliganj P.S. Case No. 293 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17264 of 2025, which reads as under:

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

2. The petitioner, who is in jail since 26.07.2024,seeks regular bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 293 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80322 of 2025(2) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 unknown criminals on the point of pistol looted Rs. 2,500/- cash and one mobile phone from the informant.

4. The looted mobile phone and a country made pistol have been recovered from the petitioner.

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

4. In the trial, charge has been framed.

5. Considering the fact that the trial is on the verge of conclusion, I am not inclined to review my earlier order dated 16.04.2025.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

7. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T