Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14808/2025dismissed

Siya Yadav @ Siya Sharan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-18Mr. Justice Harish Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14808 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-818 Year-2021 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Siya Yadav @ Siya Sharan Yadav, Son of Late Saryug Yadav, Resident of Village -Patauna, P.S. - Bihar, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dewanand Tiwari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Bihar P.S. Case No. 818 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. This is the third attempt of the petitioner, as earlier his prayer for bail came to be rejected twice by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.31494 of 2022 and further vide order dated 16.08.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.33334 of 2023, taking into consideration the trial is at the fag end, besides specific nature of accusation against the petitioner.

4. On the last occasion, when the matter was taken up,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14808 of 2025(4) dt.18-07-2025 2/2 a report was called for.

5. It has been apprised to this Court by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif vide letter no.41 dated 29.04.2025 that the case is fixed for defence argument on 02.04.2025 and there is every chances that trial shall be concluded within a month.

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that till date, trial has not been concluded and the matter is still fixed for prosecution argument(s), which is going on since long.

7. Learned Advocate for the State submitted that after conclusion of the prosecution argument(s), the matter shall be fixed "For Judgment".

8. Considering the status of trial, which clearly suggests that it is likely to be disposed off in a short span, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected.

9. However, it is expected, learned Trial Court shall take all endeavours to conclude the trial as early as possible. (Harish Kumar, J) rohit/- U T