IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20042 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-895 Year-2024 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Sunny Kumar son of Bishu Paswan @ Vishu Paswan R/O- Laddu Akhara, Near Gas Godown PS -Alamganj Dist -Patna ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mithilesh Kumar Arya For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammed Arif For the Informant : Mr. Pavan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 01-04-2026 Heard the parties. 2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 895 of 2024 / S.Tr. No. 1309 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Later on Section 25(1-b)a, 26 of the Arms Act was also added. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 49656 of 2025. Paragraph no. 5 of the order dated 18.08.2025 reads as under:- “Learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner. In paragraph 25 of the case diary, the confessional statement of the petitioner is mentioned in which he Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20042 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 2/2 disclosed that the co-accused, Sunny Kumar fired upon the victim, the arms was supplied to him by the co- accused Shiv Kumar and Rohit Pandey. Further the co- accused Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav gave Rs. 5000/- to the co-accused, Sunny Kumar as an advance to kill Rajeev Ratan Gupta. Earlier the regular bail application of the other co-accused persons were rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10643 of 2025.” 3. From perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it appears that the materials have been considered on the last occasion. 4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find any new ground to review the earlier order passed by this Court rejecting the bail application of the peetitioner. 5. Accordingly, this application is 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 expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Vikas/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U