Patna High CourtCR. MISC./87071/2025dismissed

Ranjeet Paswan @ Ranjit Paswan @ Babu v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-05Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87071 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2022 Thana- AMAS District- Gaya ====================================================== Ranjeet Paswan @ Ranjit Paswan @ Babu S/o Amrendra Paswan @ Amrendr Paswan R/o vill - Kamaldah, P.S.- Paraiya, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Amas P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 394 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. 21115 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 Amas P.S. Case No. 02 of 2022 registered for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, four unknown criminals looted the informant after assaulting him on his head by the back of the pistol and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87071 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 took away motorcycle, mobile phone and other articles from the informant.

4. The name of the petitioner has come in the self-inculpatory statement of the co-accused Nitish Kumar.

5. The petitioner is in jail since 4.1.2025.

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

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charges have been framed but till now no witness has been examined.

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

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.

6. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gayaji is directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses in the trial.

7. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX or e-mail to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gayaji for its compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T