Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46854/2025dismissed

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal @ Rajesh Paal v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-10Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46854 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2023 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal @ Rajesh Paal S/O Yogendra Pal @ Yogendra Paal R/O Vill.- Rajkhand, P.S.- Karpurigram, Dist.- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Om Prakash Om, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Karpurigram P.S. Case No. 24 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 324, 326, 326A, 307/34 of the IPC.

3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 74435 of 2023, which reads as under: "Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anish Chandra, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Karpurigram P.S. Case No.24 of 2023

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46854 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026 2/2 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 326, 326-A & 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is alleged that the petitioners have attacked the victim with acid causing grievous injury.

4. Considering the seriousness of allegation, I am not inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this application is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible."

4. The report shows that out of nine witnesses, eight witnesses have been examined whereas the learned counsel for the informant submits that all the witnesses have been examined.

5. Considering the above-mentioned fact and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed (Sandeep Kumar, J) priyanka/- U T