Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83044/2025dismissed

Rahul Kumar @ Pradeep v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-31Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83044 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2024 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Rahul Kumar @ Pradeep Son of Omprakash Ram Village -Masudan Abhaypur PS -Piribazar, Dist- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rabi Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-01-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection Pribazar P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65811 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 Piribazar P.S. Case No. 30 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the deceased went on motorcycle and his dead body was found next day.

4. During investigation, it has come that the petitioner was in a relationship with one Sakina Devi, daughter-in-law of the deceased and the deceased was a hindrance in the affair of the petitioner with Sakina Devi. The petitioner called the deceased to his poultry

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83044 of 2025(2) dt.31-01-2026 2/2 farm and killed him and threw the dead body of the deceased in front of the house of the deceased.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 4.5.2024 and the trial is progressing at a slow pace as only two witnesses have been examined. He further submits that except for confessional statement, nothing has come against the petitioner to connect him with the crime.

4. Considering the gravity of the offence, this Court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.

6. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U