Vakil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75383 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar ====================================================== VAKIL YADAV S/o Late Bindeshwari Yadav R/o Village- Kheriya Yadav Tola, P.S- Kursela, Dist- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kursaila P.S. Case no. 55 of 2025 registered under sections 140(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that he along with Ramu Mandal had gone to attend a shradh. Thereafter, the said Ramu Mandal had gone with the daughter of the informant to assist her in hiring an e-rickshaw. Since then Ramu Mandal disappeared and is not to be found inspite of search. His mobile phone is switched off.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely indicated in the case in course of the investigation. Except for suspicion, there is no material against him. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75383 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 The petitioner is in custody since 10.3.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted in the case.

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

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that in course of investigation the petitioner had confessed his guilt of having killed Ramu Mandal and having hidden his body in a corn field. It further transpires that application for bail of co-accused Rahul Kumar has been rejected vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 75054 of 2025.

7. In the facts of the case the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

8. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the above mentioned order dated 13.11.2025, similar observation be given.

9. Let the trial Court expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U T