Patna High Court
Raushan Kumar @ Raushan PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The application for regular bail was rejected.
Summary
Petitioner Raushan Kumar, accused under IPC sections 394 (robbery), 302/34 (murder) and Arms Act section 27, applied for regular bail. The prosecution alleges he participated in a robbery during which the victim was shot and later died. The petitioner claimed innocence and had been in custody since 26‑02‑2025. The State opposed bail, highlighting four prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the investigation records, found sufficient material linking the petitioner to the crime, and consequently refused to grant regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in view of the charges under IPC sections 394, 302/34 and Arms Act section 27
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to deny bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 394
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC
- robbery
- murder
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedents
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15502 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
Raushan Kumar @ Raushan Paswan Son of Bateshwar Paswan Resident Of
Mohalla- Rahwara, Ps- Sahebganj, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Pandaul P.S. Case No. 12 of 2024 registered for the offence
under Sections 394 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, a robbery was
committed and the deceased was shot at who died during the
course of treatment. The allegation against the petitioner is of
firing at the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence.
Petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15502 of 2026(2) dt.16-03-2026
2/2
opposed the prayer for bail and has four criminal antecedents.
6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
have gone through the records of the case. During the
investigation, sufficient materials have come against the
petitioner to connect him with the crime. In light of the same,
this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…