Patna High Court
Amrit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the circumstances did not warrant regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Amrit Kumar Umesh Kumar Das, applied for regular bail in a case under Section 392 of the IPC for robbery, with charge already framed and the petitioner in custody since June 2024. The petitioner argued that a co-accused had been granted bail and that the trial was pending. The State opposed bail, highlighting that looted articles and the petitioner's motorcycle were recovered and that the prosecution had examined two witnesses. The court examined the case diary, noting the seriousness of the offense and the material evidence against the petitioner. Considering the charge being framed, the evidence, and the nature of the crime, the court declined to grant bail and ordered the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 392 IPC after charge has been framed and material evidence has been recovered.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC 392
- robbery
- bail denial
- trial expediting
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73712 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-415 Year-2023 Thana- RIGA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Amrit Kumar Umesh Kumar Das @ Umesh Das Resident of Village - Mela
Road, Naya Tola, P.S. - Sitamarhi, Dist. - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brahmaputra Singh Ishu, Adv.
Mrs.Poonam Kumari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
B.P. No.967 of 2025, arising out of Riga P.S. Case No.415 of
2023 lodged under Section 392 of the IPC pending before the
Court of the ACJM-VI, Sitamarhi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected vide
order dated 06.12.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.77709 of 2024.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2024 and charge has
already been framed. He further submits that another co-accused
has been granted bail vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No.13810 of 2024.
5. Counsel further submit that progress report of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73712 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/2
trial has been called for.
6. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for bail and submits that in the rejection order, every aspect has
been taken into consideration on merit. He further submits that
the looted articles have been recovered from the possession of
the petitioner and in the commission of crime, the motorcycle of
the petitioner was being used. In this regard, categorical
statement has come in the case diary in paragraph 53, 54 and 84.
7. From the case diary, it transpires that charge has
been framed and two prosecution witnesses have been
examined.
8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case
and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
9. However, Trial Court is hereby directed to expedite
the trial.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…