Hari Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1047 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2014 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya ====================================================== Hari Yadav Son of Bhola Yadav Resident of Village - Bharatpura, P.S.- Bodh Gaya, District - Gaya.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Re: IA No. 1 of 2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Sri Sadanand Paswan. 2.

Learned Spl. PP, at the outset, submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the case is of the Year 2014 and the anticipatory bail of the appellant before the learned trial court came to be rejected by an order dated 5-7-2025 and thereafter the instant appeal came to be filed on 13-3-2026, as such there is delay of more than 210 days in filing the appeal. It is next submitted that from perusal of the limitation application, it would manifest that the same does not give any cogent reason for approaching the court seeking anticipatory bail by filing the instant appeal after a delay of 210 days.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1047 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026 2/2 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned Spl. PP but then submits that the order rejecting the anticipatory bail of the appellant is dated 5-7-2025 and the appellant came to know about the same on 2-2-2026, on which the learned Spl. PP submits that the said reason does not appear probable that appellant would not have known that his anticipatory bail application stands rejected five months ago. 4.

Considering the submission made by learned Spl, PP, the Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, hence the limitation application, bearing I.A No. 1 of 2026, is rejected and consequently the appeal also stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T