Nandu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4534 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2019 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== Nandu Yadav S/o Late Ramu Yadav R/o Village- Belatar, P.S.- Jhajha, Distt.- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail who is in custody since 05.02.2020, in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 335 of 2019, FIR dated 12.11.2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the fourth attempt for grant of regular bail on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The prosecution case, as per the FIR, 11.11.2019 at about 11:30 in the night, the petitioner along with other accused persons came at the door of the informant and when son of the informant, namely, Subhas Yadav, opened the door, the accused persons caught him and pulled him out. It has further been alleged that petitioner was having Dabiya and other accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4534 of 2025(4) dt.04-04-2025 2/3 persons were having revolver, sword, Farsa and Garasa in their hand. It has further been alleged that the petitioner slitted the neck of the informant by means of Dabiya.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2020 i.e., about more than five years. The trial has progressed and the prosecution evidence has been closed. The petitioner has filed a petition for producing defence evidence. There is no likelihood that the petitioner will abscond or tamper with the evidence. If the petitioner is granted bail he would be in better position to produce the defence evidence.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the period of custody of the petitioner and the fact that petitioner intends to produce defence evidence, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

7. This application is, accordingly, allowed.

8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned Court/ A.D.J. II, Jamui, in connection with Jhajha Police Station Case No. 335 of 2019. Subject to the following conditions:- (I) He shall produce and close the defence evidence

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4534 of 2025(4) dt.04-04-2025 3/3 within a period of three months and shall appear before learned Trial Court on each and every date so fixed by the Court and in default of two consecutive dates, the present privilege of regular bail may liable to be cancelled.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T