Patna High CourtCR. MISC./84638/2025dismissed

Biku Kumar @ Brij Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-05Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84638 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2025 Thana- HASAN BAZAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Biku Kumar @ Brij Kumar Son of Parshuram Prasad Resident of Village and P.O. and P.S.- Charpokhari in the District of Bhojpur (Ara) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pranav Kumar,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 Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37019 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 custody since 06.02.2025, seeks regular bail in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Unknown criminals looted Rs. 59,000/- from the informant. The motorcycle number of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84638 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 criminals has been given by the informant in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has come during investigation in the self-inculpatory statement of the co-accused. In the scientific investigation, the presence of the petitioner has come at the place of occurrence.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial has not commenced and the framing of charge is being delayed by the co-accused.

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

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again with direction to the concerned court below to separate the case of the petitioner and frame the charges and proceed with the trial.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T