Patna High Court
Akshay Kumar @ Akash Kumar @ SurajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The bail application was dismissed, and the petitioner was not granted bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Akshay Kumar, was arrested in connection with an ATM loot gang and was found in possession of an iron cutter, a country-made pistol, magazines, live cartridges, ATM cards, cheque books and pass-books. He was charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (310(4), 310(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 317(3), 317(5)) and the Arms Act (25(1‑b)a, 26, 35). The petitioner applied for bail for the second time, arguing that he is a BCA student and deserves sympathy. The State opposed, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the material evidence linking him to the crime. The Court, after hearing counsel, declined to revisit its earlier order and dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to a person charged with serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the nature of the alleged ATM loot and possession of firearms justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the court may set aside its earlier order denying bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 310(4), 310(5), 317(2), 317(3), 317(5), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- ATM loot
- serious offences
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65995 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Akshay Kumar @ Akash Kumar @ Suraj S/O Pramod Singh @ Pramod
Kumar Sinha R/O Village- Maidabujurg, P.S- Patepur (Harlochanpur O.P.),
Dist.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Sweeti Sinha, Advocate
Ms.Bela Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 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 Bachhwara P.S.
Case No. 41 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 310(4), 310(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 317(3),
317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1-b)a,
26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 27089 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 41 of
2025 registered for the offence punishable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65995 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
under Sections 310(4), 310(5), 338, 336(3),
340(2), 317(2), 317(3), 317(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and
35 of the Arms Act.
3. The petitioner was caught along
with other co-accused with one iron cutter in a
bag, one country made pistol, two magazines,
13 live cartridges, 11 ATM cards, 17 cheque
books and 7 pass-books.
4. The petitioner is in custody since
11.02.2025 and learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
student of BCA and therefore he deserves
sympathy.
5. From the reading of the FIR and
from the materials recovered in the crime, it
appears that the petitioner is a member of ATM
loot gang who cut ATM and take out the money.
6. In view of the fact that the
petitioner is involved in ATM loot and also the
fact that materials have come during
investigation to connect the petitioner with the
crime, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
7. According, the application stands
dismissed”
4. It has very fairly been submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the charges have been framed.
5. Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to
review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.