Patna High Court
Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that bail should be granted to the appellant and set aside the order rejecting his bail application.
Summary
The appellant was convicted in a case involving murder under sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with co‑accused, assaulted and killed the informant's son, also using caste‑based abuse. The appellant contended that he was not named in the FIR, that his involvement was only alleged during investigation, and that he had a clean antecedent, having been in custody since 24‑01‑2025. The trial court had rejected his bail application, but on appeal the High Court considered the length of custody, the lack of direct evidence linking the appellant, and his clean record. The Court ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, and set aside the earlier order denying bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences under sections 302, 34 IPC and the SC/ST Act.
- Whether the appellant's alleged involvement, not being named in the FIR, warrants continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(v)(a), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- SC/ST Act
- caste violence
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3822 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- AANDAR District- Siwan
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar Yadav @ Ranjan Kumar Son of Uma Shankar Yadav Resident
of Village - Bhawanipur, P.S. - Andar, District - Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Birendra Kumar Baitha Son of Late Jaulal Baitha R/o Village and Post -
Sanjalpur, P.S. - Andar, Dist. - Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP
For informant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Somya Janki , Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Spl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the
appellant for setting aside the order dated 15.07.2025 registered
for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 34 and other
allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(i)(r)(s) /
3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act,
whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.
3 . As per the prosecution case , on the alleged date and
time of occurrence , co-villager of informant Parmatma Yadav
informed the informant that his son Manish Kumar Baitha was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3822 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
2/3
captive at the door of co-accused Baidnath Yadav . On this
information informant came at the house of co-accused
Baidnath Yadav at Bhavrajpur along with his co-villagers
Parmatma Yadav and others, and then he saw that his son was
tied with rope, and co-accused Baidnath Yadav, appellant No. 1
Birendra Yadav, appellant No. 2 Guddu Yadav, and Uma Yadav
were assaulting his son with an iron rod and danda as a result of
which son of the informant died. It is further alleged that
accused persons also abused informant by caste name .
4. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that as per F.I.R.
informant who claims to be eye witness to the alleged
occurrence has alleged that F.I.R. named persons have
committed the murder of son of informant. Appellant is not
named in the F.I.R. and his name transpired during course of
investigation and informant has not raised any suspicion against
him. Appellant claims clean antecedent. Appellant is in custody
since 24.01.2025 .
5 . Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State opposed
the bail appeal.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, period of custody and
circumstances of the case , let the appellant, as named above be
released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3822 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
3/3
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions
Judge - 1st -cum- Special Judge , Siwan in connection with
Andar P.S. Case No. 05 of 2024 .
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.07.2025
is set aside and this criminal appeal is allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Koushik/-
U T
Checking your session…