Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75161/2025rejected

Dayanand Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-09Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75161 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2020 Thana- RAHUI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Dayanand Yadav S/o Ram Jatan Yadav R/o Village- Saidalli, P.S.- Rahui, District- Nalanda (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate :

Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Jaishankar Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2026 Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Jaishankar Prasad, learned counsel for the Informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 12.02.2021, in connection with Rahui P.S. Case No. 239 of 2020, FIR dated 19.07.2020 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was rejected thrice vide order dated 07.04.2022, 07.12.2022, 11.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 46342 of 2021, Cr. Misc. No. 63350 of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No. 46643 of 2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75161 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026 2/2 been implicated in this case. He further submits that the trial is not concluded yet and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since 12.02.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that from bare perusal of last page of the impugned order it appears that on last four occasions, learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear in the trial court and the case is fixed for argument and apart from that it appears from the FIR that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the victim and the victim died during treatment.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the matter is fixed for argument and learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Rahui P.S. Case No. 239 of 2020 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nalanda at Biharshariff.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T