Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20219 (PAT)

Indresh Ram @ Inderdeo Ram v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./41478/2026 · 2026-06-25

Sandeep Kumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41478 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2001 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Indresh Ram @ Inderdeo Ram S/o Late Banwari Lal R/o Vill- Akbarpur, P.S.- Paliganj, Distt- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Diksha Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 25-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Masaudhi P.S. Case No. 155 of 2001 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 120(B), 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act; Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Act and Section 17 of the CLA Act. 3. The naxals attacked the police personnel and killed two persons. The name of the petitioner has surfaced in the crime. He is accused in eight more cases of similar nature arising out of naxal activity. He is an absconder for the last 25 years. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a naxal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41478 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026 2/2 and also the criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case. P. Kumar (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T