Ankit Kumar PathakversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1140 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2024 Thana- SARAI District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Ankit Kumar Pathak S/O Bipin Pathak @ Bipin Kumar Pathak R/O Village-
                 Rampur Baghel, P.S- Sahdei,(Deshari), District- Vaishali.
                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner
                                                  Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                      ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner     :          Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party :          Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-02-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                   2.       This is the second attempt on behalf of the

                   petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Sarai P.S.

                   Case No.232 of 2024 registered for the offence under sections

                   317(2), 310(4/5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and sections 25(1-b)a, 26

                   and 35 of the Arms Act.

                                   3.       Earlier, the bail of the petitioner was rejected

                   by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Criminal

                   Miscellaneous No.17816 of 2025. The aforesaid order dated

                   23.07.2025 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 Sarai P.S. Case No.232 of
                                   2024 registered for the offence under Sections
                                   317(2), 310(4/5) of the BNS and Sections 25(1-
                                   b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
                                           3. As per the prosecution case, while the
                                   criminals were preparing to commit a crime,
                                   the police caught them and there is recovery of
                                   one country made pistol, two live cartridges
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1140 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                                      and one mobile phone from the petitioner. The
                                      other recoveries are also there from the other
                                      co-accused. The petitioner is accused in eight
                                      more case out of which there are two cases of
                                      murder.
                                              4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
                                      submits that the petitioner is in custody since
                                      16.10.2024.
                                              5. Learned APP for the State has
                                      vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
                                      petitioner.
                                              6. Considering the criminal antecedent
                                      of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail
                                      to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application
                                      for regular bail is hereby rejected.
                                              7. The Court below is directed to
                                      expedite the trial of the petitioner after framing
                                      of charge.”

                                      4.      Considering the fact that the petitioner has

                      eight antecedents, I am not inclined to review my earlier order

                      dated 23.07.2025. Accordingly, this bail application is

                      dismissed.

                                      5.      The trial court is directed to expedite the trial

                      and conclude the same at the earliest.



                                                              (Sandeep Kumar, J)


pawan/-
U       T