Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar Yadav @ JimmiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied and the appeal was dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Jitendra Kumar Yadav, was charged with murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with offences under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. He sought bail, claiming innocence and that his name was derived only from a co‑accused’s confessional statement, which he argued lacked evidentiary value, and that no SC/ST offence was committed. The prosecution contended that the appellant was specifically alleged to have fired at the informant’s brother, resulting in death, and that he had confessed to the crime. The court examined the seriousness of the charges, the alleged confession, and the lack of any public caste insult, and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with directions to expedite the trial and a provision for a future bail application if the trial exceeds six months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the appellant in a murder case involving IPC, Arms Act, and SC/ST Act provisions.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused provides sufficient basis to implicate the appellant.
- Whether the alleged conduct constitutes an offence under the SC/ST Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- SC/ST Act
- confessional statement
- trial acceleration
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2091 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-348 Year-2024 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan
======================================================
Jitendra Kumar Yadav @ Jimmi S/O Late Shardanand Yadav Resident of
Pakwaliya, P.S.- Hussainganj, Dist.- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajay Kumar S/O Nawal Kumar Ram Resident of Mahadeva Misan, P.S.-
Muffasil, Dist.- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Sheo Jee Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the
informant/Respondent No. 2 and perused the case diary.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by learned 1 st
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Siwan whereby
the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Siwan
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 348 of 2024 under Sections 302/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act,
Sections 3(i)(r)(s)and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was rejected.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that three unknown
persons have made firing upon informant’s brother due to which
he died.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2091 of 2025(5) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the
appellant is not named in the FIR. Name of the appellant has
transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused,
namely, Saurabh Kumar Yadav and the same has got no
evidentiary value. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that the appellant has not taken the caste name of the
informant in public view. Hence, no offence under the
provisions of SC/ST Act is made out against him. The appellant
has no intention to disgrace the image of the informant in public
view. It is next submitted that the appellant has been remanded
in this case from Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 397 of 2024. The
appellant is in custody since 25.11.2024 and has got eight
criminal antecedents. Other co-accused has been granted regular
bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed in Cr.
Appeal (S.J.) No. 3862 of 2025.
5. Learned Special P.P. for the State and the informant
have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
appellant. It is next submitted that there is specific allegation
against the appellant of committing murder of informant’s
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2091 of 2025(5) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
brother by firing upon him. It is further submitted that the
appellant has also confessed his guilt. Hence, the appellant does
not deserve the privilege of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, specific allegation as also nature and gravity of the
offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at
this juncture.
7. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The trial
Court is directed to expedite the trial. However, if the trial is not
concluded within a period of six months from the date of
receipt/production, the appellant will have liberty to renew his
prayer for bail in the Court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…