Nilesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21718 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2024 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa ====================================================== Nilesh Kumar Yadav S/o- Shobha Kant Yadav Village- Bakhri PS- Saurbazar District- Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-06-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with S.T. No. 133 of 2025 arising out of Saurbazar P.S. Case No. 359 of 2024 for the offence punishable under sections 302, 341, 323, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 02.06.2024 by the informant, Nilesh Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant (now the petitioner/accused) alleged that while he was returning from his inlaw's house along with his wife and son, near the bridge, some accused came and intercepted the motorcycle, surrounded them, the informant was beaten and went away with motorcycle/wife. He became unconscious and was taken to Primary Health Centre from where he lodged the FIR.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21718 of 2026(3) dt.19-06-2026 2/2

4. Subsequently, the dead body of the wife was found lying on the road and after investigation, it came to notice that it was the petitioner/informant who has executed the entire episode. His minor child, who was present has spilled the beans which led to his accusation. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded this fact in his order which has not been disputed in the petition.

5. Though learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court about his innocence, the facts that have been narrated earlier clearly show that petitioner was a mastermind as per the allegation behind the killing of his wife and his own child is witness to it.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, no relief can be extended.

7. The bail application is dismissed.

8. Inadvertently, instead of Trial Court Report, the Trial Court Record has come which be immediately sent back to the concerned Court.

9. Office to do the needful.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T