Patna High CourtCR. MISC./88340/2025dismissed

Pawan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88340 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2023 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Pawan Kumar S/o Batan Yadav R/o Village - Janki Nagar, Kari Mandal Tola, P.S - Janki Nagar, District - Purnea 2.

Nawin Kumar S/o Batan Yadav R/o Village - Janki Nagar, Kari Mandal Tola, P.S - Janki Nagar, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Janki Nagar P.S.Case No. 189 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28612 of 2024 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88340 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026 2/3 connection with S.T.No. 48 of 2024/CIS No. 48 of 2024 arising out of Janki Nagar P.S.Case No. 189 of 2023 registered for the offence under sections 341,323,307,302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The petitioners are the assailants of the deceased. They are in jail since 30.09.2023. Charge has been framed against the petitioners in the trial court.

4. Considering the fact that the petitioners are the assailants of the deceased, this application is dismissed.

5. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has been framed.

5. Considering the fact that the trial is on the verge of conclusion and out of 11 witnesses, 7 witnesses have been examined, the petitioner does not deserve bail in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. Reported in 2024 SCC online SC 3539.

6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) N.K/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88340 of 2025(2) dt.11-02-2026 3/3