Patna High Court
Raja Singh @ Babu Saheb @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was not granted because the offence is grave, the petitioner has multiple criminal antecedents, and the case is committed to the Sessions Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Raja Singh, was charged under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code for a robbery in which Rs. 10.95 lakh was allegedly looted. He sought bail for the second time after an earlier bail application was rejected. The prosecution relied on a self‑inculpatory statement of co‑accused Sachin Kr. Singh and highlighted the petitioner’s six prior criminal antecedents. The trial judge had committed the case to the Sessions Court, indicating the seriousness of the offence. The High Court, noting the gravity of the crime, the pending trial, and the petitioner’s criminal history, declined to review its earlier order and dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged under Section 392 IPC considering the seriousness of the offence and his criminal antecedents.
- Whether the earlier order denying bail can be reviewed on a second application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- criminal antecedents
- high court
- bail application
- self‑inculpatory statement
- session court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78524 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2021 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran
======================================================
Raja Singh @ Babu Saheb @ Rahul Kumar Son of Late Bhola Singh @
Ganesh Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Mahrauli, P.S.- Aurai, District -
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kush, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 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 Madhuban P.S.
Case No. 61 of 2021 registered for the offence under Section
392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 74850 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 Madhuban P.S. Case No. 61 of
2021 registered for the offence under Section
392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case,
unknown criminals have looted Rs. 10.95 lakhs
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78524 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
from the informant who belongs to Bharat
Finance.
3. The name of the petitioner has
come in the self-inculpatory statement of the
co-accused Sachin Kr. Singh.
4. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there is no
recovery from the petitioner and Sachin Kr.
Singh has already been granted bail by this
Court The petitioner is in custody since
8.7.2024.
5. Considering the fact that the
petitioner is one of the criminals who
participated in the loot of huge amount and has
six criminal antecedents, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.”
4. From the report of the trial Judge, it appears that
the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and also the
fact that the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, 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…