IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74722 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ======================================================

Bhola Yadav @ Navneet Kumar S/O Bali Yadav @ Bali Ram Yadav @ Ram Bali Yadav R/O Village - Belhanti, P.S- Muffasil, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

4 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C and Sections 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and others attacked the husband of the informant and upon order of co- accused, Arun Yadav, petitioner fired upon the informant’s husband which hit on his head and the other co-accused, Mahesh Yadav, fired which hit his stomach and, thereafter, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. On the way to hospital, the informant’s husband died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the perusal of the First Information Report that, as a matter of fact, the informant herself is not an eye witness of the occurrence and the petitioner has been implicated on account of previous land dispute between the parties. It has been submitted that the death of the deceased is actually a case of a blind murder which took place at a deserted place and, subsequently, the name of the petitioner and other accused persons have been taken with specific allegations also being imputed at the petitioner. Further, the charges have been framed in this case on 27.05.2025 but no witness has been examined till date and the petitioner is languishing in custody since

02.08.2023 with no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail petition on the ground that there is a direct allegation of firing on this petitioner and upon considering the same the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 28.03.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 67237 of 2024.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the direct allegations upon this petitioner of firing and also considering the fact that the report with regard to the stage of the trial indicates that after charges having been framed on 27.05.2025, the summons and warrants have been issued on the charge sheeted witnesses who are nine in number, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. However, if no substantial progress is made in the case in another period of six months, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

vashudha/-

U T