Patna High Court

Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Ajit kumar @ Karku YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The petition for regular bail was denied.

Summary

Ajit Kumar Yadav, charged under IPC sections 341, 307, 302, 120B, 34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, applied for regular bail after being in custody since 21 September 2023. This was his second bail petition; the first was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner argued that only four of seven prosecution witnesses had been examined and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, and he pledged not to abscond. The State contended that the charge was framed on 20 September 2024, the trial was expected to finish shortly, and that the petitioner was the principal assailant with two prior convictions, thus not deserving bail. The Court found no fresh ground for bail, noted that most witnesses had already been examined, and consequently rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and stage of trial
Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or interfering with the trial
Whether the petitioner’s criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 307, 34, 341

Subjects

bail
regular bail
IPC
Arms Act
murder
attempt to murder
criminal conspiracy
trial delay
custody
high court

Judgment

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86578 of 2024
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-359 Year-2022 Thana- MOUZAHIDPUR District- Bhagalpur
                  ======================================================
                  Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Ajit kumar @ Karku Yadav Son of Laxmikant Yadav
                  Resident of Village- Kutub Ganj, Post- GPO, P.S.- Mojahidpur (Babarganj),
                  Distt.- Bhagalpur.
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                  The State of Bihar.                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                  ======================================================
                  Appearance :
                  For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate.
                                                  Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate.
                                                  Mr. Saurabh Raj, Advocate.
                                                  Mr. Roushan Kumar, Advocate.
                  For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, A.P.P.
                  ======================================================
                  CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
                                        ORAL ORDER

11   09-01-2026                   1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and

                    learned APP for the State.

                                  2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

                    Mojahidpur (Babarganj) P.S. Case No.359 of 2022 for the

                    offences registered under Sections 341, 307, 302, 120B, 34 of the

                    I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                  3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits

                    that this is the second bail petition filed on behalf of the

                    petitioner. Earlier, the bail application of petitioner was

                    dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated

                    26.04.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.77729 of 2023. He further

                    submits that petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2023 and out of

                    seven prosecution witnesses, only four prosecution witnesses have

                    been examined till date. Learned Senior Counsel submits that

                    there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in near future.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86578 of 2024(11) dt.09-01-2026
                                                          2/2




                        He further submits that the petitioner will not abscond and he

                        shall co-operate in the trial.

                                     4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on

                        behalf of the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the

                        petitioner and submits that the charge in this case has been framed

                        on 20.09.2024 and the trial is likely to be concluded in near

                        future. He further submits that petitioner is the main assailant on

                        whom there is an allegation that he fired on the chest of the

                        deceased and he also has two criminal antecedents, therefore, the

                        petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

                                     5. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and

                        considering that no fresh ground is made out by the petitioner

                        for consideration of bail and also considering that most of the

                        prosecution witnesses have been examined, I am not inclined to

                        grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of

                        the petitioner is rejected.

                                     6. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the

                        trial and dispose of the case at earliest in view of the custody

                        period of the petitioner.



                                                (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…