IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3228 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2024 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Guriya Kumari Son of Kamlesh mhato R/o Village - Samsa, P.S. - Mansoorchak, Dist. - Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sabal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 12-02-2026 Heard the parties. 2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Bachhawara P.S. Case No. 418 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 115(2), 308(4), 351(2), 303(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. and under Section 66(C ), 66(D) of the I.T. Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25048 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State; Sri Shyam Kumar Singh and the learned counsel for the informant. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 418 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 115(2), 308(4), 351(2), 303(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3228 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/2 3. From the FIR as well as other materials in the case diary, it appears that the petitioner is a member of an organized gang and the members of the gang trap innocent people, call them for providing a job and thereafter they extort money after beating them. 4. This has happened with the informant also. The petitioner and others co-accused had taken a total of Rs. 2,59,260/- from the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2024. 5. Considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and only one out of four witnesses have been examined. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. 5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. tusharika/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T