Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76885/2025bail rejected

Manish Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-21Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76885 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-159 Year-2011 Thana- KARPI District- Arwal ====================================================== Manish Yadav Son of Damari Yadav Resident of Village- Belaura, P.S.- Banshi (Karpi), District- Arwal ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Satyendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Karpi P.S. Case no.159 of 2011 registered under sections 307, 342 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act to which section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added subsequently.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have fired from his pistol hitting the informant in his stomach. The informant subsequently died.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The manner of occurrence is other than what has been narrated in the F.I.R. Several co-accused, details of whom has been given in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76885 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026 2/2 petition have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in custody since 7.4.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner of being the assailant of the deceased together with the fact that in an F.I.R. registered on 31.12.2011, the petitioner absconded for 14 years and was taken into custody only on 7.4.2025, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. (Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T