Patna High Court
KAILASH YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the appellants.
Summary
Kailash Yadav and Ashok Yadav were charged under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly participating in a violent incident in which a group of accused fired on Sanjeev Ram and the husband of an informant, the latter dying from gunshot wounds. The appellants contended that they were merely members of an unlawful assembly and had not personally fired any weapon, arguing that they were falsely implicated and pointing to bail being granted to similarly situated co‑accused in earlier cases. Their earlier bail application had been rejected, with the court allowing a fresh application after six months. On re‑application, the Patna High Court noted the prolonged custodial period of about 1½ years, the lack of any flight risk, and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, and consequently ordered regular bail on condition of personal appearance at trial. The bail was set at a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of equal amount each.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants, alleged members of an unlawful assembly who were present at the scene, are entitled to bail despite accusations of firing weapons resulting in death.
- Whether the delay in trial proceedings and the absence of a flight risk justify granting bail.
- Whether the grant of bail to co‑accused in similar cases is determinative for the appellants' bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(2)(V)
Subjects
- bail
- unlawful assembly
- arms act
- SC/ST Act
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- trial delay
- flight risk
- scheduled caste atrocity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4231 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2024 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. KAILASH YADAV S/O LATE DASRATH YADAV @ TIKLI YADAV R/o
vill and P.O. - Amni, P.S.- Mansi, Distt - Khagaria
2. Ashok Yadav S/o Late Dasrath Yadav @ Tikli Yadav R/o vill and P.O. -
Amni, P.S.- Mansi, Distt - Khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mamta Devi @ Mamta Kumari W/o Late Rohit Ram R/o vill and P.O. -
Amni, P.S.- Mansi, Distt - Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Diwakar Prasad Singh
For the State : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
7 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned Counsel
for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned Special
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the
State.
2. The appellant have renewed their prayer for bail in
connection with Muffasil Police Station Case No. 112 of
2024, corresponding to Special (SC/ST) G.R. No. 98 of
2024, registered under Section 191(2)/191(3)/190/103(1)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 as well as Section 27
of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4231 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
2/5
Act, 1989.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 22.08.2024, upon information that the
appellants, along with 9-10 co-accused persons, have
surrounded one Sanjeev Ram and were firing
indiscriminately upon him, the informant, along with her
husband and others, rushed to the place of occurrence and
saw that all the accused persons including the appellants
were armed with lethal weapons. When the informant and
others intervened, they started abusing and assaulting the
informant, her husband and others by taking their caste
name and also fired upon them, due to which the husband
of the informant died by firing made by co-accused
Chhabila Yadav. It has further been alleged that co-
accused Suman Mishra fired upon Sanjeev Ram, co-
accused Chhotu Mishra fired upon Ranveer Ram and co-
accused Aplesh Yadav fired upon Bhola Ram with an
intention to kill but somehow they were saved.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants have falsely been implicated in this case along
with his brothers. Although six brothers of the appellants
were named as accused in this case but specific allegation
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4231 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
3/5
of firing is against co-accused Chhabila Yadav. The
appellants are merely members of unlawful assembly and
no overt act has been alleged against them. He further
submits that similarly situated co-accused persons,
namely, Suman Mishra and Ajit Yadav, have been granted
regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide
orders dated 16.09.2025 and 26.06.2025, passed in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 1142 of 2025 and 893 of 2025,
respectively. He further submits that co-accused Tejo
Yadav has also been granted bail by this Court, vide
order, dated 30.01.2026, passed in Criminal Appeal (1st
Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, SC/ST,)
No. 4495 of 2025. He next submits that the appellants are
in custody since 23.08.2024 and 06.09.2024 respectively
and the progress of the trial is very slow and up till now
only one prosecution witness has been examined during
the trial.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party
No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the
appellants were holding weapons in their hands and were
also the part of the unlawful assembly, which fired upon
the informant’s husband, due to which he died.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4231 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
4/5
6. Earlier, the prayer for bail of the appellants was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025, passed in
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 5559 of 2024 with liberty to the
appellants to renew their prayer for bail after six months
if the trial does not show any substantial progress.
7. Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties,
taking into consideration the fact that similarly situated
co-accused persons have been granted bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court and this Court also, the
appellant is in custody for about 1½ years and there is no
flight risk of the appellants, I am inclined to grant regular
bail to the appellants.
8. Let the appellants, above named, be released on regular
bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000 /- (ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge
-cum- Special Judge, SC/ST, Khagaria, in connection
with Muffasil Police Station Case No. 112 of 2024,
corresponding to Special SC/ST G.R. No. 98 of 2024,
subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain
present on each and every date during the course of trial
and in case of default on two consecutive dates without
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4231 of 2025(7) dt.25-02-2026
5/5
prior permission of the trial court his bail bond shall liable
to be cancelled.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.