Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Saw v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83171 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2025 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Saw S/O Late Harikishun Saw Resident of MohallaTulsimandi, Gulzarbagh, P.S- Alamganj, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 366 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and later on Section 310(2) of the BNS has been added.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of snatching mobile phone of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence; the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83171 of 2025(6) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 materials collected during investigation and also the fact that bail application of similarly situated co-accused namely, Rohit Kumar @ Black has been dismissed by this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T