Patna High Court
Shushant KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted due to the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Shushant Kumar, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged robbery and dishonest removal of property. The prosecution alleged that he looted an informant at gunpoint, with his name implicated through a co-accused's self‑incriminating statement, and noted his custody since July 2024 and involvement in four other serious cases. The High Court, recalling its earlier order denying bail, considered the gravity of the offences, the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, and the fact that the trial had already commenced. It concluded that these factors outweighed any justification for bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences under Sections 392 and 411 IPC, his criminal antecedents, and the commencement of trial
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392, 411
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- IPC
- criminal antecedent
- trial
- high court
- Patna
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49518 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2024 Thana- SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR District-
Saharsa
======================================================
Shushant Kumar S/O Om Kumar @ Om Yadav R/o Village-Indrava, PS-Saur
Bazar, Distt-Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Randhir Kumar No 1, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
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 Simri
Bakhtiyarpur P.S.Case No. 80 of 2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and
added section 411 of the IPC.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.75381 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 Simri Bakhtiyarpur
P.S.Case No.80 of 2024 registered for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49518 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
offence under section 392 and 411 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case,
the petitioner is said to have looted the
informant on gun point and assaulted him.
4. The name of the petitioner has
transpired in this case on the basis of a
self inculpatory statement of co-accused
and he is in custody since 20.07.2024.
5. The petitioner is also accused
in four more cases of similar and serious
nature.
6. Considering the nature of
allegation and the criminal antecedent of
petitioner, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the charge has been framed.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the fact that the trial
has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
N.K/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.