← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49891/2025bail rejected

Satyendra Yadav @ Sakendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-19Mr. Justice Shailendra Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49891 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2022 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Satyendra Yadav @ Sakendra yadav S/o Late Hulash Yadav @ Hulash R/o vill - Rajoundha, P.S.- Mohanpur, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Binod Kumar , APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with S.T. No. 538 of 2022 arising out of Barachatti ( Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 169 of 2022 dated 27.02.2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that this petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons armed with weapons like lathi, danda, tangi, iron rod etc. came to her house, dragged and assaulted the informant's husband (deceased). Further it is alleged that this petitioner assaulted the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49891 of 2025(5) dt.19-09-2025 2/3 deceased by means of tangi on his head and the accused persons also assaulted the informant's family members.

4. The main submissions advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner are that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to get the relief of bail and the fresh grounds for renewing the prayer are petitioner's long custody period which has been about two years and two months and no progress in his trial as according to the status report of the petitioner's trial sent by the trial court, petitioner's case has been committed to the court of Sessions on 29.07.2025 and there may be delay in the conclusion of the petitioner's trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 10.07.2023 and so far as the merit of the allegation is concerned, though the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted tangi blow on the head of the deceased but the medical expert's opinion with regard to the nature of injury found on the head of the deceased as well as type of means in causing the said injury does not corroborate the use of tangi as the head injury of the deceased was opined to be a lacerated wound.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and submits that informant is mother of the petitioner,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49891 of 2025(5) dt.19-09-2025 3/3 the deceased is father of the petitioner and prior to the commission of the alleged occurrence relating to the present matter, an FIR had also been lodged by the mother of the petitioner with the allegation of assault.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the relevant materials. Though the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 10.07.2023 and there is no progress in his trial and the petitioner's case has been committed recently to the court of Sessions, however, considering the seriousness of the allegation which relates to the murder of the deceased who happened to be father of the petitioner and the FIR was lodged by petitioner's own mother, coupled with the petitioner's criminal antecedent of three cases, this Court is not inclined to take a different approach from that of taken earlier. Accordingly, petitioner's present prayer also stands rejected.

7. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and take steps to conclude the same preferably in the next 12 (twelve) months.

(Shailendra Singh, J) maynaz/- U T