Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36482/2026rejected

Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-21Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36482 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-590 Year-2025 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali ====================================================== Prince Kumar, Aged-23 years, S/O Ram Swaroop Rai, R/O VillageDullahpur, P.S - Goraul (Kathara O.P), District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of the BNS.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is to have committed loot of gold ornaments and cash from a jewellery shop on the gun point.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and no specific allegation against petitioner nor any eye witnesses have supported the allegation as made by the informant and the witnesses are hear say witness. Petitioner is in custody since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36482 of 2026(3) dt.21-07-2026 2/2 09.03.2026.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is allegation for committing the gold loot from a jewellery shop on the gun point.

6. From perusal of the first information report, case diary and impugned order dated 30.04.2026, it appears that the petitioner has got four criminal antecedents and the confessional statement of petitioner has come in the case diary wherein he has confessed to commit the offence and several witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution as also the fact that the petitioner has got four criminal antecedents as stated in para-3 of the petition, so I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. Petitioner is directed to renew his prayer for bail after completion of eight months (8) in custody before this Court.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T