Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55375/2025dismissed

Darshan Kumar @ Donga v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-16Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55375 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2023 Thana- CHERIYA BARIYARPUR DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Darshan Kumar @ Donga Son of Shyam Prakash Poddar @ Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Kumar village- Manjhout Ward no 11 Baba Tola PS- Cheria Bariarpur (Manjhoul O.P.) District -Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cheria Bariarpur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 26.07.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 46719 of 2024 which reads as follows:- Heard learned cousnel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Cheria Bariarpur P.S.Case No. 131 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55375 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026 2/2

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and one Rahul Kumar @ Magnu have killed the deceased after having liquor with him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 25.08.2023.

5. Considering the facts that the petitioner has been found involved in killing of the deceased,I am not inclined to granted bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

6. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner. If the trial is delayed because of the fault of the pro section the petitioner will renew his prayer for bail.

4. The charge has been framed on 05.09.2024 and out of ten charge-sheeted witnesses, two witnesses have been examined.

5. Considering the fact that the trial is progressing, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T