Patna High Court
Dharamvir KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the bail application, upholding the earlier order denying bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharamvir Kumar, was charged under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act for allegedly snatching a vehicle and pistol. He applied for regular bail, which was first rejected on 27‑08‑2025. He made a second bail application, arguing that charges had been framed and he was innocent. The court noted the seriousness of the offences, that the trial had already commenced, and that no fresh ground for bail was shown. Consequently, the court dismissed the second bail application, reaffirming the earlier order, while stating that its observations were limited to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the gravity of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act
- Whether the commencement of trial and lack of fresh grounds justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- gravity of offence
- trial commencement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28585 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2025 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Dharamvir Kumar Son of Ram Eshwar Das Resident of Village -Keshopur
Babhangaw, P.S.- Paroo, District -Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Mistry, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 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 bail in connection with Paroo P.S. Case
No. 228 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections
309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-
b)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 57744 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28585 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/3
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Paroo P.S. Case No. 228 of
2025 registered for the offence under Sections
309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 & 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on
being told by one Raja Kumar, the informant
proceeded with his Bolero vehicle to rent out the
same and reached at Jafarpur where two
unknown persons boarded the vehicle and one
unknown person boarded the vehicle in
Kharauni Village but after covering some
distance, one of them pointed a pistol at the
informant and snatched away his vehicle along
with his mobile.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is innocent and has not
committed any offence. Petitioner is in custody
since 04.05.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail by submitting that this petitioner has been
apprehended by the Police and the looted
vehicle has been recovered from the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I
am not inclined to grant regular bail to the
petitioner. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is hereby dismissed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges have been framed in the trial.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that
the trial has started and no fresh ground for grant of bail is made
out, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28585 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/3
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.