Vijay Yadav @ Vijay @ Ranvijay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82928 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-246 Year-2024 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== Vijay Yadav @ Vijay @ Ranvijay Yadav S/O Bhupendra Yadav @ Bhaiyalal Yadav Resident of Village- Pothiya Tola, Panchayat Sirsiya Kala ward no. 07, Police Station- Bhargama, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 109, 103 (1), 331 (4), 305, 76 and 61 (2) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier bail petition of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 16.06.2025. It is further submitted that the stage of trial report was called for from the learned trial court and, from perusal of the said report, it is evident that all the witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at its fag end.

4. As far as the case of the prosecution is concerned, it

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82928 of 2025(4) dt.17-04-2026 2/2 is alleged that the petitioner, along with 25 to 30 unknown persons, all armed with deadly weapons and riding on bikes, tractors and trailers, reached the place of occurrence. On seeing the informant, the co-accused Bhupendra Yadav ordered his associates to surround the house and kill the family members, upon which the accused persons started indiscriminate firing. As a result of the gunshot injuries, the uncle of the informant died.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that, from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the nature of allegations against the petitioner is general and omnibus.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the trial is at its fag end, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage which is accordingly rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after three months, if the trial is not concluded by then.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U T