Munna Kumar @ Munna Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1116 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2023 Thana- RAUTA District- Purnia ====================================================== Munna Kumar @ Munna Kumar Yadav S/O Sattan Yadav R/O VillageJagdal, P.S- Rauta, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Rajendra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2.

This is the third attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Rauta P.S. Case No.22 of 2023 registered for the offence under sections 363 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Earlier, the bail applications of the petitioner were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 21.03.2024 and 18.01.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4916 of 2024 and 64936 of 2024. The order dated 18.01.2025 by which the bail application of the petitioner was rejected for the second time reads as under:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. Earlier the regular bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1116 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 2/3 21.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4916 of 2024.

3. The following order reads as follows:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Routa P.S. Case No.22 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under sections 363 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Unknown criminals have killed the deceased. During investigation, it has come that the petitioner has made five phone calls on the mobile phone of the deceased. Thereafter, he was killed by the petitioner and other accused persons.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail.

5. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has started and two witnesses have been examined. This application is dismissed.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Purnea is directed to produce the witnesses on the date fixed in the trial so that the trial may not be delayed.

6. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Purnea through FAX for its forthwith compliance."

4.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of eleven witnesses, eight witnesses have been examined in the trial.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1116 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026 3/3 5.

Considering the fact that the trial is proceeding and also the law laid down down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

6.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T