Deo Narayan Yadav @ Jam v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82359 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-118 Year-2019 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Deo Narayan Yadav @ Jam son of Mahendra yadav Resident of VillageGhatmadhiya, Ps- Basopatti, Dist- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Adv.
Mr.Ravi Prakash, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Basopatti P.S. Case no.118 of 2019 registered under sections 307, 326 and 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that petitioner and coaccused Mahendera Yadav shot the informant, which hit his right thigh and right waist, causing grievous injury to him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. After charges being framed on 26.08.2020, the witnesses were examined from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82359 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026 2/3 26.02.2021 to 22.01.2024 and the prosecution evidence was finally closed on 11.07.2024 whereafter the accused were also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 13.09.2024, after which the case was fixed for defense evidence and final argument on 23.10.2024. Further, till date the case has not concluded and the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2020, which is more than 6 years. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State on the ground that petitioner has several criminal antecedents and the delay which is being caused in conclusion of the trial is on account of the accused persons as till date final argument has not been done as one of the accused had absconded and the trial was also disturbed by the defense counsel at the stage of final argument, as has been stated in the bail rejection order.
6. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2020 and case is at the stage of final argument of the defense and also considering that the accused person had also absconded during trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82359 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026 3/3 trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, as the case is at the stage of argument.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T