Patna High Court
Anubhav Kumar @ KanjhappaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents warrant continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Anubhav Kumar, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 393, 307, 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, relating to a train‑loot incident where a firearm was discharged. The trial is underway with six of ten witnesses already examined. The petitioner claimed innocence but has 13 prior criminal convictions and has been in custody since April 2023. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s antecedents. The Court, noting the gravity of the crimes and the advanced stage of trial, declined to revisit its earlier order and dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences under IPC and the Arms Act
- Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the stage of trial justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 326, 393
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedent
- serious offence
- trial stage
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.943 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA RAIL P.S. District- Patna
======================================================
Anubhav Kumar @ Kanjhappa S/O Syam Prasad @ Umesh Prasad R/O
Mohalla- Koiri Tola, Math Lakshmanpur, P.S- Alamganj, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Rajiv Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 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 S. Tr. No. 1011 of
2023, arising out of Patna Junction P.S. Case No. 115 of 2023,
registered for the offence under Sections393/307/326 of the
Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 27190 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with S. Tr. No. 1011 of 2023, arising
out of Patna Junction P.S. Case No. 115 of 2023,
registered for the offence under
Sections393/307/326 of the Indian Penal Code
and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the
petitioner was trying to commit loot in the train
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.943 of 2026(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
has fired which hit the victim.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is innocent and has not
committed any offence. Petitioner has 13 criminal
antecedents and he is in custody since
03.04.2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the gravity of offence
and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is dismissed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits
that the trial has started and out of ten witnesses, six witnesses
have been examined.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that six out of ten witnesses have been examined, 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…