Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16784/2025dismissed

Jabisan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-12Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16784 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2004 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna ====================================================== Jabisan Yadav S/O Bimal Yadav R/O Vill.- Sahabajpur, P.S.- Karai, Parsurai, Dist.- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 117 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 302/34 of the IPC.

3. As per allegation, on 01.07.2024 at about 01:00 hours in the daytime, her Dewar Sanjay Kumar Yadav had a conversation with her deceased husband regarding the construction of a new house, during which a scuffle took place. Meanwhile, Sanjay Yadav, his brother-in-law Dukhiya Yadav, Jabisan Yadav (the petitioner), Mocchu Yadav, Sodhni Devi, and Sanjay Yadav assaulted him on the head with a spade and murdered him at the house.

4. By drawing my attention towards the depositions of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16784 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2025 2/2 the witnesses, it has been submitted that during course of trial, the witnesses including the informant, have not supported the prosecution case.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with those accused persons, who are facing trial, because the petitioner has been declared an absconder and the trial has been hampered for a long duration of 21 years.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

7. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T