Rakesh Yadav @ Malinga @ Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63495 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2023 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rakesh Yadav @ Malinga @ Rakesh Kumar S/o Manoj Yadav R/o VillageTaralahi, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Sharwan Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned Senior Counsel for the informant. 2.

This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.216 of 2023 registered for the offence under sections 302 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

Earlier, the bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 02.04.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.19029 of 2024. The aforesaid order dated 02.04.2024 reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

This application for grant of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63495 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026 2/3 regular bail arises out of Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.216 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

The petitioner and others are accused of committing murder of a person. The petitioner is accused in two more criminal cases.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no overt act against the petitioner and he is not named in the F.I.R. and therefore, he deserves bail.

5.

During investigation, it has come that the petitioner has actively participated in the crime. The petitioner has blocked the road so that the victim could not escape and thereafter, all the accused persons have killed him.

6.

Considering the fact that the petitioner has actively participated in the killing of the deceased because of the earlier dispute, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail.

Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. If there is no substantial progress in the trial, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

7.

The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the matter before the trial court."

4.

From the report of the court below, it appears

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63495 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026 3/3 that the petitioner has filed discharge application twice which have been rejected by the court below.

5.

Considering the fact that the trial is proceeding and the petitioner is trying to delay the trial, I am not inclined to review my earlier order dated 02.04.2024. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U