Patna High CourtCR. MISC./89977/2025bail rejected

Rajesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-03Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89977 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1215 Year-2023 Thana- SHERGHATI District- Gaya ====================================================== Rajesh Yadav S/o Basudeo Yadav R/o Village - Kharati, P.S - Dobhi, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratan Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sherghati (Bahera OP) P.S. Case No. 1215 of 2023, instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on u/s 302 of the I.P.C. was added.

3. Earlier, vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11924 of 2025, regular bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court considering the specific allegation against the petitioner to assault the deceased, with a liberty to renew the prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded.

4. In compliance of the order dated 09.02.2026, a report dated 16.02.2026 with regard to the present stage of trial has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it appears

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89977 of 2025(4) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 that out of seven prosecution witnesses, five witnesses have been examined. It is further reported that summon has been issued for production of witnesses. The trial would be completed within four months.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.12.2023 without any rhymes or reason.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

7. There is no fresh ground to consider the bail petition of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the trial is going on and is at an advance stage.

8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T