Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Yadav v. The State of Bihar
CR. MISC./20499/2026 · 2026-04-17
Ashok Kumar Pandey
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7912 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7912 (PAT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20499 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2024 Thana- BAGENGOLA District- Buxar ======================================================
1. Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Yadav S/o- Ram Chandar Singh R/v- Barhadi Tola Chhapra Ps- Bagengola Dist- Buxar
2. Ram Chandar Singh S/o- Late Sadhu Yadav R/v- Barhadi Tola Chhapra Ps- Bagengola Dist- Buxar
3. Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Kumar Singh S/o- Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Yadav R/v- Barhadi Tola Chhapra Ps- Bagengola Dist- Buxar
4. Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o- Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra Yadav R/v- Barhadi Tola Chhapra Ps- Bagengola Dist- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 17-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Bagengola P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 190, 329(3), 115(2), 118, 117(2) and 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 which was earlier rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41728 of 2025.
3. After some submissions, the learned APP for the state has submitted that in this case, the argument of defence has been concluded, and the case is fixed for argument for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20499 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026 2/2 prosecution. It has also been assured that the trial is likely to be concluded within one month.
4. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 06.08.2025, however the petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after one months if the trial is not concluded.
Sudhanshu/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T