Jwala Yadav @ Jwala Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3283 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-250 Year-2025 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Jwala Yadav @ Jwala Kumar Son of Late Mahesh Yadav R/O Village Alipur, P.S.- Salimpur, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Adv.

Mrs.Priyanka Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anita Kumari For the Informant :

Mr. Saurav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Salimpur P.S. Case No. 250 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 109, 118(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and others are said to have fired upon the deceased because of which he sustained multiple bullet injuries and died.

4. The petitioner is in custody since 7.9.2025.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application of the petitioner and have submitted that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3283 of 2026(4) dt.20-07-2026 2/2 allegation levelled against the petitioner is supported by the post-mortem report of the deceased and the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation. They next submits that in the trial, charges have been framed in the month of April, 2026.

7. I have heard and considered the submission of the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

8. Considering the direct allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

10. The trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial as the learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the informant will examine the prosecution witnesses in the trial on the dates fixed in the trial.

11. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is delayed then the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U