Patna High Court
Ranjay Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar @ GungaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the regular bail application, refusing bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjay Kumar, was charged under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 (also referenced as Section 37) of the Arms Act for allegedly threatening and assaulting a truck driver and his helper, and for looting Rs. 3,000. The prosecution presented a confessional statement and recovered the weapon from the petitioner’s cowshed, noting his four prior criminal antecedents and his custody since January 2024. The petitioner applied for regular bail, arguing lack of progress in the trial. The court, recalling its earlier order dismissing the bail application on 19‑02‑2025, found the gravity of the offence, the antecedents, and the weapon recovery sufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to remain in custody pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged under Section 394 IPC and the Arms Act given the seriousness of the offence, prior criminal antecedents, and recovery of the weapon.
- Whether the lack of progress in the trial warrants the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27, 37
- Indian Penal Code — s. 394
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedents
- confessional statement
- weapon recovery
- court discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69231 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-737 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Ranjay Kumar @ Ranjan Kumar @ Gunga S/o Zameli Ray R/o Village-
Kolharampur, P.S.- Barhara, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Barhara instituted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the informant, being a
truck driver, alleges that when he along with his helper
(Khalasi) was going, with his truck loaded with sand, to
Muzaffarpur, on a stop, the petitioner along with other accused
persons armed with weapon came and started to threaten and
assault the informant and the helper.
4. Earlier the regular bail application of the
petitioner was rejected on 19.02.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 8650 of
2025 by this Court which reads as under:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69231 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Barahara P.S. Case No. 737 of
2023 registered for the offence under Sections 394
of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37 of
the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case,
criminal looted Rs. 3,000/- from the informant and
the firing, they were injured.
4. On the confessional statement of
the petitioner, the weapon used in the crime were
recovered from his cowshed. Petitioner has four
criminal antecedent and is in custody since
09.01.2024.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is dismissed.
7. The Superintendent of Police,
Bhojpur at Ara is directed to ensure the presence of
the witnesses in the Trial.
8. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the Superintendent of Police,
Bhojpur at Ara through FAX for its compliance
forthwith.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there is no sufficient progress in the case.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not
inclined to review my earlier order.
7. The application for regular bail is, accordingly,
dismissed.
8. The Court below is directed to proceed in this case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69231 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
If there is any delay by the prosecution, the petitioner is at
liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U T
Checking your session…