IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56972 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2024 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== Yugeshwar Yadav @ Nepali @ Nepali Jee S/o Rakshya Yadav R/o Village- Bodhisthan, P.S.- Amas, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Rampur P.S.Case No. 55 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 387, 353, 414,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and section 13, (18),(19), (20) of the U.A.P.A Act. 3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.38478 of 2024 which reads as under:- “ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Rampur P.S.Case No.55 of 2024 registered for the offence under Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56972 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026 2/3 sections 386, 387, 353, 414, 120B and sections 13,18,19,20 of the UAPA Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, one Vimal Yadav is said to have been caught when he was delilvering the letter for demand of extortion of money of Rs. 7 lakhs to the informant. 4. The name of the petitioner has come during investigation and also in the self inclupatory statement of the other co- accused Vimal Yadav. 5. The petitioner is also accused in eight more cases and he appears to be a Naxal of that area. 6. Considering the facts and the antecedents of the petitioner this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 8. The court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge has been framed. 5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier order. 6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. N.K/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56972 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026 3/3