← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19990/2026dismissed

Yogendra Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-01Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19990 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-1998 Thana- MUSRIGHRARI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Yogendra Paswan S/o Late Shivdhari Paswan Resident of VillageLatbasepura, P.S.- Musrigharari, Dist.- Samastipur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Keshav Bhardwaj, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Musrigharari P.S. Case No. 26 of 1998 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons are said to have killed the deceased for dowry.

4. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the deceased. He is an absconder in a case for almost three decades. He is in custody since 15.07.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased had died because of snake bite.

6. Considering the allegation and the fact that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19990 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026 2/2 petitioner has absconded for the last almost 30 years, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after the material witnesses are examined in the trial.

8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) P. Kumar U T