Vinod Yadav @ Sardar Yadav @ Binod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10422 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2024 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya ====================================================== Vinod Yadav @ Sardar Yadav @ Binod Yadav S/o Lakhandev Yadav @ Akhan Yadav R/o vill - Dhanchhui, PS- Konch, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2026 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 bail in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 155 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail applications of the petitioner were rejected twice vide orders dated 10.07.2024 and 09.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 47088 of 2024 and 24014 of 2025 respectively.
4. The following order was passed on 09.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 24014 of 2025, which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10422 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/3 petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Konch P.S. Case No.155 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387 and 379/34of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 10.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47088 of 2024, which reads as follows:
"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in the present case registered for the offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of demanding extortion money and took away one mobile phone, chain and Rs. 30,000/- from the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been implicated due to village politics. Petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that petitioner is accused in three more cases which includes the case under Section 392 of the I.P.C.
6. I have considered the submissions of the parties. Petitioner appears to be a hardened criminal and considering the serious allegation of extortion and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected"
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has been framed but the trial is still pending.
5. This application is dismissed with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya to ensure the attendance of witnesses in the trial.
6. Let a copy of this order be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10422 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026 3/3 communicated to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya, forthwith through FAX or e-mail for its compliance."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges have been framed in the trial.
7. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.
8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T