Patna High Court
Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court upheld its earlier decision and dismissed the bail application, refusing to grant bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, was charged under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC and Sections 25(1‑b)a and 27 of the Arms Act for looting gold and silver jewellery, based on a co‑accused’s statement. He has been in custody since 11‑Oct‑2023 and the trial has already commenced. The petitioner sought bail for the second time, arguing that he should be released pending trial. The court noted the seriousness of the offences, the likelihood of the petitioner committing further offences, and his antecedent criminal record, including murder and loot cases, and found no merit in revisiting its earlier order denying bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the gravity of the offences and his antecedent criminal record
- Whether the earlier bail denial order can be reviewed on a second application
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395, 397
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- arms offences
- high court
- criminal procedure
- antecedent criminal record
- trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44623 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2023 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Deepak Kumar Son of Amirilal Sah @ Amirilal R/o village - Semara Khas,
P.S.- Turkauliya, Dist.- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhannjay Kumar Ii
For the State : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 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 bail in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case
No. 322 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 395,
397 of the IPC and 28(1-b)a, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2024 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 59284 of 2024, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 322 of 2023 registered for
the offence under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal
Code and under Section 25(1-b)a, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, some gold
and silver jewellary was looted from a jewellar when
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44623 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
he was going back to his home after closing his shop.
4. One Vishnu Kumar was arrested and he
has made a self-inculpatory statement and has named
the petitioner. At the instance of Vishnu Kumar, looted
articles have been recovered.
5. The petitioner is in custody since
11.10.2023.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence,
nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner,
likelihood of the petitioner to commit further offence
and the antecedent of the petitioner which includes
cases of murder and loot, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
8. The Court below is directed to expedite
the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the
earliest.”
4. The charge has been framed and trial is already
started.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I
am not inclined to review my earlier order..
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…