Patna High Court
Saroj YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court refused to grant bail and dismissed the petitioner's application.
Summary
Saroj Yadav was charged under several serious provisions of the Indian Penal Code (sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 385, 307, 504, 506) and section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at a victim. He has been in custody since 19‑12‑2024 and is alleged to have been an absconder for seven years, with five other criminal cases pending. The petitioner sought regular bail for the second time, arguing that the trial was being delayed by the informant. The informant contended that the prosecution was not causing any delay and that witnesses were being produced. The court, noting the gravity of the offences, the petitioner’s alleged absconding, and the fact that the trial had already commenced, declined to revisit its earlier order and dismissed the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner charged with serious offences under the IPC and Arms Act who is alleged to be an absconder.
- Whether alleged delay in trial attributable to the informant justifies granting bail.
- Whether the earlier bail denial order can be reviewed on the ground of trial delay.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 341, 385, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- serious offences
- absconding
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79157 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2018 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
======================================================
Saroj Yadav S/O Ram Ashish Yadav R/O Village- Bahuwarba, P.S.-
Phulparas, Dist.- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Choubey Jawahar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Phulparas P.S.
Case No.138 of 2018 registered for the offence punishable
under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 385, 307, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and under section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 24318 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the informant.
2. This application for grant of
regular bail arises out of Phulparas P.S. Case
No.138 of 2018 registered for the offence
punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
385, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79157 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/2
and under section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The petitioner and one Ashok Yadav
are said to have caused gun shot injuries to the
victim.
4. The petitioner is in custody since
19.12.2024. He is accused in five more criminal
cases. The present F.I.R. has been lodged in the
year 2018. The petitioner is an absconder for
seven years.
5. Considering the fact that the
petitioner is said to have fired upon the victim
and he is an absconder, I am not inclined to
grant the petitioner privilege of regular bail.
Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. If
the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the
petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial is being delayed by the informant and therefore, he may be
granted bail considering the period of custody i.e., 19.12.2024.
5. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the
witnesses are being produced by the prosecution and the
prosecution is not delaying the trial.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…