Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76077/2025dismissed

Md. Quddush v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76077 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-315 Year-2024 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Md. Quddush S/o Md. Jalaluddin @ Md. Jalaluddin R/o Mohalla - Bhusunda, P.S.- Muffasil, District - Gaya, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh ====================================================== 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 Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2025 arising out of Muffasil Gaya P.S. Case No. 315 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16710 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Gaya Muffassil P.S. Case No. 315 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76077 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are said to have killed the deceased.

4. The petitioner is also said to have earlier fired at the deceased and he is in custody since 24.10.2024.

5. Considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, 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 by submitting that charges have been framed on 24.10.2024 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