IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32609 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2005 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya ====================================================== Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Yadav S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav R/o Madho Bigha (Bathani), P.S.- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anjani Kumar Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 8 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Session Trial No. 920 of 2024 arising out of Atri P.S. Case No. 15 of 2005, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 379 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. According to the allegations, the informant was standing on the road. Meanwhile, 14 to 15 vehicles coming from Wazirganj were celebrating with rangh-abir and stopped near the village. The newly elected MLA Rajendra Yadav, along with his son (the petitioner), armed with rifles, guns, etc., and accompanied by hundreds of supporters, came there. The specific allegation against co-accused Rajendra Yadav is that he fired, which hit Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32609 of 2025(8) dt.04-02-2026 2/2 Mintu Kumari, the sister of the informant, resulting in her death. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. There is no allegation of firing against the petitioner, and a number of innocent persons have been implicated. He has further submitted that the co-accused Rajendra Yadav has been convicted. The petitioner is under custody since 18.10.2024. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail. 6. The petitioner didn’t surrender, and due to his abscondence, the case lingered for a considerable period of twenty years. The petitioner is under custody since 18.10.2024, and only one witness has been examined. 7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. 8. The learned court below is directed to expedite the trial. kundan/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T