Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83925/2025dismissed

Ramjee Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-05Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83925 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2024 Thana- Ramgarh Chowk District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Ramjee Sao S/o Kapildev Saav (Sao) Resident of Village - Ram Nagar Ward No. 11, (Mankatha), P.S - Amahara, District - Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhim Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Aslam Ansari, 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 Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 231 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 309(4) of the B.N.S. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30688 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 Ramghar Chawk P.S. Case No. 231 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 309(4) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals are said to have looted Rs. 20,000/-, one mobile phone etc from the informant after assaulting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83925 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 him.

4. The name of the petitioner has come during investigation. The petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2024 and he is accused in four more cases of similar nature.

5. Considering the nature of allegation and the antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the trial, charge has been framed.

4. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that trial has started, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T