Patna High Court
Rambhu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the stage of the trial and the nature of the offences did not warrant release.
Summary
Rambhu Yadav was charged under IPC sections 302, 120B read with 34 and Arms Act section 27 for the murder of Md. Gulzar. He applied for regular bail, having been in custody since November 2022, after a prior bail request was denied. The informant opposed bail, noting that a key witness, Badri Yadav, had been murdered and the petitioner was named in a new FIR. The State also opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal history. The High Court held that the trial was at the argument stage and it was not an appropriate time to grant bail, rejecting the petition and directing the trial court to conclude the trial within three months without unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of murder, conspiracy and arms offences at the argument stage of trial.
- Whether the petitioner’s long criminal history and the murder of a material witness affect the bail decision.
- Whether the pending FIR and charges against the petitioner preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- arms act
- trial delay
- witness murder
- criminal history
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67917 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-528 Year-2022 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
======================================================
Rambhu Yadav, S/O Chandra Mohan Yadav, R/O Village- Dhanoja Tola,
Nabtol, P.S- Phulparas, Distt.- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 09-01-2026 Heard Mr. Hriday Narayan Harshit, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh, learned APP for the
State and Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar, learned counsel for
the informant.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Phulparas P.S. Case No. 528 of 2022 dated 05.11.2022
registered for the offences punishable under sections 302 and
120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution story, on 05.11.2022, Kamal
Yadav called the deceased Md. Gulzar to the market. While
returning on a motorcycle at about 5:00 P.M. near Bachherwa,
the accused Rambhu Yadav (petitioner) along with three other
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67917 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
co-accused persons assaulted him and on instigation of Kapil
Dev Yadav, they fired at him, causing his death.
4. The main submissions advanced by petitioner’s
counsel are that this is the second attempt of the petitioner to get
the relief of bail and his first prayer for the same relief was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 14360/2024, in which the trial court was directed to
expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same in the
next fifteen months but the petitioner’s trial is still running and
he has been languishing in jail since 20.11.2022.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
informant has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the
petitioner and submits that one material witness of the trial of
the petitioner, namely, Badri Yadav has been murdered,
regarding which an FIR bearing Phulparas P.S. Case No. 302 of
2025 has been registered, in which the petitioner has been
named and he has been chargesheeted also and further, the
petitioner’s trial is at the verge of end as the same is running at
the stage of argument.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has also
opposed the prayer of the petitioner.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67917 of 2025(4) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
counsel appearing for the informant and mainly taking into
account the petitioner’s long criminal history, the nature of
allegation and the stage of his trial as reflected from the status
report of his trial, which shows that his trial is still running for
the argument on behalf of prosecution, in my opinion, it is not a
fit stage to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer
stands rejected.
8. It is expected from the trial court to conclude the
petitioner’s trial in the next three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Court’s order and no unnecessary
adjournment shall be given to either of the parties.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
annu/-
U T
Checking your session…