Patna High CourtCR. MISC./54237/2025dismissed

Kunal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-13Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54237 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2024 Thana- Jaitpur District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Kunal Kumar S/O Shiv Mahto @ Shiv Jee Mahto R/O Village- Ram Krishna Dubiyahi, P.S- Jaitpur, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is an application for regular bail on behalf of the petitioner for the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 120B/34 of the of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Jaitpur P.S.Case No. 48 of 2024/S.T.No. 149/2025.

3. As per allegation, the son of the informant was taken by the petitioner along with other accused persons. Till late evening, he did not return.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. None has seen the occurrence and the name of the petitioner has figured only on the basis of suspicion.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54237 of 2025(5) dt.13-01-2026 2/2

5. On the other hand, the learned APP Mr. Shailendra Kumar has submitted that all the four persons, who took the son of the informant, have been named in the FIR. Smothering and strangulation mark was found on the dead-body.

6. The petitioner is named in the FIR. He along with other co-accused persons called the deceased and took him. Later on, his dead-body was recovered.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, and in view of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of bail, which is hereby rejected.

8. Since the petitioner is in custody for near about a year, the learned trial court is directed to take every endeavour to expedite the trial.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T