IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74439 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2024 Thana- Ramgarh Chowk District- Lakhisarai ======================================================

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh @ Rajnish Kumar Son of Naresh Chaudhary @ Naresh Choudhary R/o Village - Bigha Jamalpur, P.S. - Sheikhpura, Dist. -

Sheikhpura.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER

3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 395, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.

No. 70884 of 2024, which reads as under:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 395, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, Rs.

5,37,641/- was snatched by five unknown criminals on gun point.

4. It has been submitted by the learned APP for the State that Rs. 86,000/- of the looted money has been recovered from the petitioner though, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no TIP has been held and the money recovered from the petitioner was his own and not the looted money.

5. Considering the serious allegations of loot against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

7. If the TIP has not been held yet, the police is directed to hold the TIP.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the charge has been framed but no witness has been examined.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. 7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

8. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai is directed to ensure the appearance of the witnesses in the trial so that the trial is not delayed.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Principal District Judge, Lakhisarai and the Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai forthwith through FAX or e-mail for its compliance.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

P. Kumar U T