Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55695/2025dismissed

Ashok Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-10Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55695 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2010 Thana- KHIJARSARAI District- Gaya ====================================================== Ashok Yadav Son of Badari Yadav Resident of Village- Behorwa, P.S.- Neemchak, Bathani, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Smita Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard the parties.

2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Sarai P.S. Case No. 96 of 2010 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 435, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 17 of the CLA Act. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3060 of 2024 which reads as under:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of regular bail arises out of Khizarsarai P.S. Case No.96 of 2010 registered for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 435, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 17 of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55695 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026 2/2 CLA Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, some criminals have stopped a truck and burnt it and thereafter they have taken the driver and cleaner of the truck inside the forest.

4. During investigation, the name of the petitioner has come. The petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2023. This case is of the year 2010. The petitioner is an absconder.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that two witnesses have already been examined in this case and the State is co-operating in the trial.

4. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial is proceedings, this court finds no ground to review its earlier order.

5. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Vikas/- U