Patna High CourtCR. MISC./16286/2025dismissed

Karu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-23Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16286 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2024 Thana- THALI District- Nawada ====================================================== Karu Yadav Son of Kuldeep Yadav Resident of Village- Khakhandua, P.S.- Thali, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate :

Mr. Amarshakti, Advocate :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate :

Ms. Asmita Bharti, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate :

Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025 Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned senior counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Thali P.S. Case No. 220 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2), 324(6), 352, 351(2), 103(1) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has assaulted the deceased on his head and, thereafter, co-accused persons have also assaulted the deceased, due to which he died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16286 of 2025(5) dt.23-07-2025 2/2

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the F.I.R. has been registered after delay of one day and there are some discrepancies in the investigation. The petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2024.

5. Learned senior counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is one of the assailants of the deceased and the prosecution case is corroborated by the postmortem report. He has further argued before this Court that the prosecution will not delay the trial and will produce the witnesses as soon as the charges are framed.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this application for regular bail is hereby rejected.

8. If the trail is delayed by the prosecution, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) anand/- U T