Patna High Court
Amit Kumar @ Amit Prasad @ Amit GopeversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The bail application is dismissed, and the earlier order denying bail is upheld.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar, was charged with murder, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, and offences under the Arms Act for allegedly participating in the killing of a Sub‑Inspector during a cattle‑theft raid. He has been in custody since 5 October 2023. The petitioner sought regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail denial on 20 July 2024. The court noted that several co‑accused had already been released on bail, but most of the trial witnesses had been examined and the offences were grave. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024 SCC Online SC 3539), the court declined to revisit its earlier order and dismissed the bail application, directing the Superintendent of Police to ensure the presence of the remaining witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences and the stage of trial.
- Whether the earlier bail order dated 20 July 2024 can be reviewed on a subsequent application.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) mandates denial of bail at this stage.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 323, 34, 353
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- attempt to murder
- criminal intimidation
- Arms Act
- trial stage
- witness examination
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39448 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2023 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Amit Kumar @ Amit Prasad @ Amit Gope S/O Sri Umesh Prasad @ Umesh
Gop @ Haddi Gop R/O Jharhappur, P.s.- Karai, Parshurai, Dist.- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Hansraj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 10-02-2026 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 Ujiyarpur
P.S. Case No. 306 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 307, 353, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, the bail of the petitioner was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 20.07.2024 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.30729 of 2024. The aforesaid order dated
20.07.2024 reads as under:-
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 306
of 2023 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 302, 307, 353, 323/34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26,
27, 35 of the Arms Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39448 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
3. As per the prosecution case, police
tried to apprehend the criminals who were
involved in the cattle theft and in that process,
the S.H.O.(deceased) caught hold of one of the
accused. Other accused persons tried to free
the co-accused who was caught by the S.H.O.
and when the S.H.O. did not free the co-
accused, one of the co-accused shot the S.H.O.
in his eyes and the S.H.O. died.
4. The name of the petitioner has
surfaced during investigation that he was a
part of a gang of criminals involved in the
killing of the S.H.O. He is in jail since
05.10.2023.
5. Considering the serious allegations
levelled against the petitioner, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is dismissed”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2023 and some co-
accused have been granted bail.
5. From the report of the trial Judge, it appears
that out twelve witnesses, seven witnesses have been examined
in the trial.
6. Considering the gravity of offence and the
fact that in the trial most of the witnesses have been examined
as also the laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported as 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3539, I am not inclined to review my earlier order
dated 20.07.2024. Accordingly, this bail application is
dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39448 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
7. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur is
directed to ensure the presence of remaining witnesses in the
trial.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to
the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur forthwith through FAX
or e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.