Arun Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar @ Arun Singh v. The State of Bihar
CR. MISC./84637/2025 · 2026-05-05
Sandeep Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6086 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6086 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84637 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-338 Year-2023 Thana- MAJORGANJ District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Arun Kumar Singh @ Amit Kumar @ Arun Singh S/o- Late Lalbabu Singh @ Gali Singh Resident of Village- Dumrikala PS- Majorganj, Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Subodh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 05-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Majorganj P.S. Case No. 338 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 399, 402, 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of Arms Act also read with Sections 8, 20(ii)(C ), 22(C ), 23(C ) of NDPS Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 22.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 76009 of 2024.
3. As per the prosecution case, the recovery is of 1.5 kg of charas, one loaded pistol, one misfired cartridge and one cover of cartridge from the possession of the petitioner and other co-accused. Petitioner has 22 criminal antecedents and is in custody since 22.11.2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84637 of 2025(3) dt.05-05-2026 2/2
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and only four out of eight witnesses have been examined.
5. Considering the huge quantity of charas recovered from the possession of the petitioner, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
tusharika/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T