Patna High CourtCR. MISC./85526/2025dismissed

Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-05Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85526 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2024 Thana- Marnga District- Purnia ====================================================== Rahul Kumar S/o Late Yugal Singh @ Late Jugal Singh R/o Village - Parora, Near - Parora School Chowk, P.S - K. Nagar, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, 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 Maranga P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8807 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Maranga P.S. Case No. 129 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Unknown criminals looted Rs. 1,22,000/-.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85526 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026 2/2 is in custody since 13.08.2024. The petitioner is accused in three more similar and serious cases.

4. Considering the nature of allegation as well as the antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial has been committed but no witness has been examined till date.

5. Considering the gravity of offence, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

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