Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6485/2026rejected

Srikant Yadav @ Tiger v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-23Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6485 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2025 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== Srikant Yadav @ Tiger S/O Geno Yadav R/O Village- Jagiyatari, P.S- Jhajha, Distt.- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Niranjan Parihar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Niranjan Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 09.04.2025 in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 169 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 07.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 317(2) of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, three unknown miscreants intercepted the petitioner and poured some poisonous liquid into his eyes and on the point of gun they looted several articles from the informant along with Rs. 2 lakh cash and key of his car and fled away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6485 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026 2/2 present case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been transpired during investigation on the basis of self confessional statement of the petitioner and except the aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been identified in the TIP and apart from that the petitioner carries four criminal antecedents other than the present one. It is further stated that the recovery has also been made from the possession of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 169 of 2024 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamui.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T