Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24856/2026dismissed

Nikhil Yadav @ Nikhil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-01Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24856 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2024 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Nikhil Yadav @ Nikhil Kumar S/O Arvind Kumar Singh @ Arvind Singh @ Arbind Prasad Resident of Village-Durmri, P.S Dulhin Bazar, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Chandra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 237 of 2024. Earlier his bail application was rejected vide order dated 3.9.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43523 of 2025 which reads as under:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 237 of 2024 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 118(1) & 109 of the BNS and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of killing the deceased. He is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24856 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026 2/2 the main assailant of the deceased. In the FIR, there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he gave gunshot injury to the deceased.

4. The petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2024 and has two criminal antecedents.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial, out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses, one witness has already been examined.

4. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

6. 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 expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U