Patna High Court
Deepak Kumar @ Dipak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The second bail application was dismissed as it was filed prematurely.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, applied for bail after his earlier bail application was rejected on 23 July 2025. He filed a second bail application more than three months after the first, which the court noted as a procedural lapse. The petitioner’s counsel attempted to justify the delay, but the court was not persuaded. The High Court held that the second bail application was filed prematurely and therefore could not be entertained. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a bail application filed after the expiry of three months from the previous application is maintainable
Subjects
- bail
- premature filing
- criminal procedure
- High Court
- application dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4546 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-656 Year-2024 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Deepak Kumar @ Dipak Kumar S/o Ramayan Mahto Resident of Village-
Mohchhi Bankatwa, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Nautan, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, 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. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
16708 of 2025.
3. The second bail application has been filed after
expiry of three months. This kind of practice by the advocate on
record is not appreciated. Though learned senior counsel for
the petitioner has tried to defend the action of the advocate on
record, this court is not inclined to entertain this application.
4. This application is dismissed because of filing it
prematurely.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
N.K/-
U
Checking your session…