Patna High CourtCR. MISC./79098/2025dismissed

Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79098 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-614 Year-2023 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Kumar Yadav S/o Nandev Yadav @ Nundev Yadav Resident of village - Daad Nagar, Police station- Katoria, District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Balram Kapri, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 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 Banka P.S. Case No. 614 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 38461 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 Banka P.S. Case No. 614 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals looted Rs. 1,00,000/- from the informant and thereafter the Apache Motorcycle

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79098 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 was recovered which was used in the crime.

4. The name of the petitioner has come in the self-inculpatory statement of the coaccused.

5. The petitioner is in custody since 22.4.2025.

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

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial, charges have been framed.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T