Umesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14917 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2021 Thana- JAMOBAZAR District- Siwan ====================================================== Umesh Yadav Son of Ramchandra Yadav Resident of Village - Ramu Rai Ke Tola, P.S.- Jamo Bazar, District - Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 466 of 2022, arising out of Jamo Bazar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2021, dated 03.12.2021, registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 324, 323, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Siwan.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the bail application of the petitioner has earlier been rejected three times and withdrawn one time vide order dated 06.09.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25630 of 2022, vide order dated 29.03.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 65933 of 2022, vide order dated 19.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12466 of 2024 and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14917 of 2026(3) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 vide order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 86808 of 2025. Counsel also submits that the Trial Court has not concluded the trial till date and the petitioner has been in custody since 24.12.2021.

4. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that a report has been called for, and from the same, it transpires that the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been completed, and the case is presently fixed for the examination of defence witnesses.

5. The defence witness is required to be produced by the accused himself.

6. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail is hereby rejected.

7. It is hereby directed to the concerned Trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest, preferably within three months. If any delay occurs on the part of the accused in producing the defence witness, the Trial Court shall record the same in the order sheet.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U