Om Prakash Yadav @ Om Prakash v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91015 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- Badem P.S. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Om Prakash Yadav @ Om prakash son of Nayayan Yadav Resident of villageRahra Police Station- Badem District-Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

For the Informant :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Badem P. S. Case No. 41 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 103(1), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per F.I.R., all the named accused persons, including this petitioner, came with khanti and rod and assaulted informant and her family members. It is further alleged that this petitioner dashed the daughter of informant with his tractor during course of scuffle, as a result of which she died during treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91015 of 2025(3) dt.11-03-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. On account of land dispute, free fight took place between the parties in which both sides sustained injuries. Case and counter case. Petitioner claims clean antecedent and is in custody since 16.07.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific accusation against this petitioner that he dashed the daughter of informant with his tractor as a result of which she died.

6. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

7. However, since petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2025, Trial Court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T