Patna High Court
RAJA KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was not granted; the application was dismissed.
Summary
Raja Kumar was charged under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code for dacoity and concealment of stolen property. He filed a second bail application (Cr. Misc. No.6398 of 2025) after an earlier bail plea was rejected on 29‑02‑2024. The State argued that all witnesses had already been examined and emphasized the seriousness of the offences. The Court considered the gravity of the crime and the fact that the trial witnesses had been examined, and therefore declined to revisit its earlier order. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the seriousness of the offences under Sections 395 and 412 IPC and the fact that all witnesses have been examined.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395, 412
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- dacoity
- concealment of stolen property
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6398 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2022 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
RAJA KUMAR S/O- MANOJ MAHTO, Resident of Village- Suro P.S.-
Bachhwara District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with S.Tr. No.339 of 2023,
arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No. 422 of 2022, registered for
the offence under Sections 395, 412 of the I.P.C.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been
rejected vide order dated 29.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.61464 of 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that all the
witnesses have been examined in the trial.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the all the witnesses have been examined, I am not inclined
to review my earlier order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6398 of 2025(8) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
mdrashid/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.