Amarkant Kumar @ Ravi Kant @ Amar Kanth v. The State of Bihar
CR. MISC./25680/2026 · 2026-05-06
Sandeep Kumar
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12228 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 12228 (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.25680 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2025 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada ====================================================== Amarkant Kumar @ Ravi Kant @ Amar Kanth Son of Anil Kebat Resident of Badi Takiya Kala, Ward No. 51, P.S. - Deepnagar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Prasad ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 06-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 168 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 16.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 46883 of 2025 which reads as follows:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 168 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other named accused persons are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25680 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/2 accused of cheating Rs. 46 lakhs from the members of self help group.
4. The petitioner is in custody since
21.3.2025.
5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has committed cheating of such a huge amount, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
4. This Court finds no ground to review its earlier
order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.
Shishir/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T