Patna High Court
Biru Paswan @ Biru Kumar Paswan @ BiruversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The bail applications were dismissed, and the earlier orders denying bail were upheld.
Summary
Petitioners Gagan Raj and Biru Paswan applied for bail in separate criminal miscellaneous proceedings concerning a dacoity (IPC Sec. 395) and violations of the Arms Act (Secs. 25(1‑b)a, 26, 34). Their earlier bail applications had been rejected on 7 March 2025. The prosecution alleged that unknown criminals looted gold and cash worth about Rs. 1.5 lakh, and the petitioners were implicated through a co‑accused’s self‑inculpatory statement and CCTV footage. The petitioners could not demonstrate any fresh ground for bail, and the court noted the seriousness of the offences. Justice Sandeep Kumar declined to revisit the prior orders and dismissed both bail applications.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a dacoity case under IPC Sec. 395 and related Arms Act offences.
- Whether the earlier denial of bail can be reviewed in the absence of new material or grounds.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 34
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395
Subjects
- bail
- dacoity
- Arms Act
- IPC Sec. 395
- high court
- gravity of offence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77773 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Gagan Raj Son of Ram Udeshya Ray R/O Asarafpur Supoul, P.S- Patori,
District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 85004 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Biru Paswan @ Biru Kumar Paswan @ Biru S/O Late Biraju Paswan @ Late
Virju Paswan R/O Chakbaladhari, P.S- Hajipur Sadar, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 77773 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Madan Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 85004 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhirendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77773 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
APP for the State in both the cases.
2. Both the aforesaid petitioners seek bail in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 80 of 2024 registered
for the offence under Sections 395 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 25(1-b)a, 26 and 34 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner of Cr.
Misc. No. 77773 of 2025 has been rejected vide order dated
07.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10786 of 2025. Similarly,
the bail application of the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 85004 of
2025 has been rejected vide order dated 07.03.2025 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 12321 of 2025.
4. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals
committed dacoity at Reliance Jewells in Samstipur and looted
heavy amount of gold and cash around 1.5 lakh.
5. Petitioner Gagan has been named in the self-
inculpatory statement of co-accused Biru Paswan whose face
was captured in the CCTV footage. Petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.
77773 of 2025 is in jail since 01.06.2024 and the petitioner of
Cr. Misc. No. 85004 of 2025 is in custody since 06.05.2024.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners in
both the aforesaid cases have vehemently argued but they are
unable to point out any new ground for grant of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77773 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
7. Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not
inclined to review my earlier orders.
8. Accordingly, both the aforesaid applications are
dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…