Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3186/2026dismissed

Vikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-12Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3186 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-477 Year-2024 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Vikram Kumar S/o Late Arjun Singh RO Village- Lalpokhar Dighi, PS- Sadar Hajipur, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 477 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 24573 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No. 477 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, one country made pistol and one live cartridge were recovered from the possession of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3186 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2

4. Petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2024. He is accused in 11 more cases of similar and serious nature.

5. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

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

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charges have been framed and petitioner is custody since 16.07.2024 and has eleven criminal antecedents.

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

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