Krishna Yadav @ Krishandeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85336 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2014 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui ====================================================== Krishna Yadav @ Krishandeo Yadav S/o Masudan Yadav R/o village - Sohjana, P.S - Jhajha, District - Jamui, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Rekha Devi W/o Late Yogendra Prasad Yadav R/o village - Sohjana, P.O and P.S - Jhajha, District - Jamui, Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar For the O.P. No. 2 :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 210 of 2014 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 498A, 323, 504, 406, 120B, 379 and 409 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Pursuant to the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the Panchnama filed in the Court below to show that the one-third share of O.P. No. 2 has been separated. It is, however, submitted that O.P. No. 2 is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85336 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026 2/2 ready to accept the same and has refused to sign the document.

4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the share of the complainant is much more than what has been allotted to her; therefore, she is not accepting the partition.

5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the brother-in-law (devar) of the O.P. No. 2 and he has tortured the O.P. No. 2.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the Panchama produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to confirm the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 07.01.2026. The petitioner shall remain on the same bail bonds.

7. However, if O.P. No. 2 is dissatisfied with the Panchnama, she may seek appropriate remedy by filing a Partition Suit in the District Court.

8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T