Patna High Court
Darogi YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Darogi Yadav, was charged under Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 16 to 22 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in connection with a 2016 case. He has been in custody since December 13, 2022 and faces twenty additional serious cases. The prosecution alleged that explosives were recovered from a jungle, and the trial has proceeded with only one of six witnesses examined. The petitioner applied for regular bail for the second time. The court, noting the seriousness of the offences, the number of pending cases, and the limited progress of the trial, declined to grant bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case
Legislation cited
- Explosive Substances Act — s. 4, 5, 6
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
Subjects
- bail
- Explosive Substances Act
- UAPA
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24289 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2016 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui
======================================================
Darogi Yadav S/O Bodhan Yadav R/O Village- Dudhania, P.S- Sono, Dist.-
Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ankita Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for grant
of regular bail in connection with Chakai P.S. Case No. 80 of
2016 registered for the offence under Sections 4, 5, 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act and under Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21 and 22 of the UAP Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the explosives were
recovered in the jungle.
4. The petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2022 and
he is accused in 20 more cases of similar and serious nature.
5. The trial of the case is progressing and out of six
witnesses, one witness has already been examined.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24289 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/2
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…