Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75372/2025dismissed

Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75372 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2024 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Prince Kumar S/o Sadhu Mishra Resident of Village- Akbarpur, P.S.- Naubatpur, District- Patna, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vandana Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Renu Kumari ====================================================== 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 with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 70608 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 Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 120 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are said to have killed the son of the informant by cutting his neck.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75372 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2

4. The petitioner is in custody since 23.02.2024 and the driver is a witness to the detention of the son of the informant by the accused persons.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

3. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued this case vehemently but he has been unable to point out any new ground for grant of bail.

4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

5. The trial Judge, is directed to frame the charge and proceed with the trial so that the trial of the petitioner is not delayed.

6. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is delayed by the prosecution then the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U