Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35727/2026dismissed

Jaigovind Yadav @ Kariman Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-06-30Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35727 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2025 Thana- DARAUNDA District- Siwan ====================================================== Jaigovind Yadav @ Kariman Yadav S/O Kedarnath Yadav R/O Madrichak, P.S.- Daraunda, District- Siwan, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Apurv Harsh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail in connection with Daraunda P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 103(1), 352 & 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.

3. Earlier, the bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 16.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 46586 of 2025 which reads as follows:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Daraunda P.S. Case No.

128 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35727 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026 2/2

3. The petitioner and others named in the FIR are said to have stabbed the victim and killed him.

4. Materials have come during investigation to connect the petitioner with the crime. There is also a self inculpatory statement of one the coaccused.

5. The petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2025.

6. The post-mortem report also supports the prosecution case.

7. Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the trial, five out of eleven witnesses have been examined and all the witnesses have become hostile, therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I am not inclined to review my earlier order.

6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) sadique/- U T