Patna High Court
Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the petitioner's application for regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, was charged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Mahendra Yadav. He applied for regular bail for the second time after an earlier bail application was rejected. The prosecution argued that the petitioner’s name appeared in a confessional statement of a co‑accused and highlighted the seriousness of the offence. The petitioner’s counsel contended that he had a clean antecedent, was not present at the scene, and had been in custody since December 2023. The court noted that the trial was underway with most witnesses examined but found no merit to revisit the earlier bail order, deeming the allegations serious enough to deny bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder and common intention under IPC sections 302, 201 and 34.
- Whether the earlier bail order can be reviewed in view of the confessional statement of a co‑accused and the progress of the trial.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 201
- IPC 34
- confessional statement
- serious offence
- trial progress
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72649 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-517 Year-2023 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar S/o- Late Shivan Ram Bhuiyan @ Shivam Bhuiyan R/v- Azad
Bigha Ps- Madanpur Dist- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aman Vishal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Anita Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for
grant of regular bail in connection Sessions Trial No. 313/2024/
200/2024 arising out of Madanpur P.S. Case No. 517 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner
was rejected vide order dated 22.02.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 10625 of 2024 which reads as under:-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 517 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
informant’s son Mahendra Yadav (deceased) was in a
relationship with Sanju Kumari, which infuriated the
petitioner. The petitioner along with other accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72649 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
persons assaulted the son of the informant by means of
fists, slap and sticks due to which he fainted and later
succumbed to injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent, he has
not committed any overt act. He further submitted that
the petitioner was not present at the place of
occurrence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
is in custody since 04.12.2023.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and submitted that the name of the
petitioner transpired during the investigation in a
confessional statement made by one of the co-accused
who participated in killing of Mahendra Yadav.
6. Considering the serious allegation
levelled against the petitioner and the manner of
murder, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for regular
bail stands dismissed.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the trial is progressing and out of eight, six
witnesses have been examined.
4. The trial judge vide his report dated 04.12.2025 has
submitted that he will conclude the trial within four months.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…