Chandra Bhushan Yadav @ Jhagru Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33222 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-509 Year-2024 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Chandra Bhushan Yadav @ Jhagru Yadav Son of Late Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village- Basudevpur, P.S.- Sonaki (O.P.) and District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 227 of 2026 arising out of Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 509 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Earlier, vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 60650 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the nature of accusation and gravity of offence.

4. In compliance of the order dated 15.05.2026 a report

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33222 of 2026(4) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 dated 30.06.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears that case is fixed for prosecution evidence and out of eleven witnesses, none has been examined.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.05.2025 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.

8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T