Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70712/2025dismissed

Manu Kumar @ Monu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70712 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2023 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== Manu Kumar @ Monu Kumar S/O Ram Balak Mahto R/O Kala Gurdaha, P.S.- Manjhi, Distt.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shekhar Harshvardhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Manjhi P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 326/ 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7302 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 Manjhi P.S. Case No. 03 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 326, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is assailant of the deceased and he is said to have stabbed the deceased. The murder weapon i.e. the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70712 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 Knife has been recovered on the statement of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner is in jail since 7.1.2023.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the assailant of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

7. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial is progressing and out of seven, four witnesses have been examined.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again. (Sandeep Kumar, J) tusharika/- U T