Patna High Court
Tejo yadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Tejo Yadav, was charged under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) of the B.N.S. 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act for allegedly participating in a firing incident on 22‑08‑2024 that resulted in the death of an informant’s husband. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including the appellant, were armed and fired indiscriminately, while the defence contended that the appellant was only a member of the unlawful assembly and no specific act of firing was attributed to him. The appellant had been in custody for over 1½ years with the trial progressing slowly, and similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench. The court considered the lack of substantial trial progress, the absence of a flight risk, and the precedent of bail to co‑accused, and consequently granted regular bail to the appellant subject to bond and surety conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite charges under the B.N.S. 2023, Arms Act and SC/ST Act.
- Whether the slow progress of the trial and the grant of bail to co‑accused justify granting bail to the appellant.
- Whether the appellant poses a flight risk or threat to public order warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
- SC/ST Act — s. 3(2)(V)
Subjects
- bail
- unlawful assembly
- Arms Act
- SC/ST Act
- trial delay
- flight risk
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4495 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2024 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria
======================================================
Tejo yadav S/O Late Dashrath Yadav @ Tikli Yadav R/O Vill-Amni, P.S.-
Mansi, Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mamta Kumari W/O Late Rohit Ram R/O Vill-Amni, P.S.-Mansi, Distt.-
Khagaria
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 30-01-2026 1. Heard the parties.
2. The appellant has renewed his prayer for bail in
connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 112 / 2024
corresponding to Special (SC/ST) G.R. No. 98 / 2024 registered
under Section 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1) of the B.N.S. 2023 as
well as Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the
SC / ST Act.
3. The bail application of the appellant was earlier rejected
by this court vide order dated 26.03.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal
(SJ) No. 5687 / 2024 with liberty to the appellant to renew his
prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not show any
substantial progress.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4495 of 2025(5) dt.30-01-2026
2/4
4. The prosecution case in short is that on 22.08.2024 upon
information that the appellant along with 9-10 co-accused
persons have surrounded 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 appellant were armed
with lethal weapons. When the informant and others intervened,
they started abusing and assaulting the informant, her husband
and others by caste name and also fired upon them due to which
the husband of the informant died by firing made by Chhabila
Yadav. It has further been alleged that Suman Mishra fired upon
Sanjeev Ram, Chhotu Mishra fired upon Ranveer Ram, Aplesh
Yadav fired upon Bhola Ram with an intention to kill but
somehow they were saved.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant
has falsely been implicated in this case along with his brothers.
Although six brothers of the appellant were named as accused in
this case but specific allegation of firing is against Chhabila
Yadav. The appellant is merely a member of unlawful assembly
and no overt act has been alleged against him. Similarly situated
co-accused Suman Mishra and Ajit Yadav have been granted
regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4495 of 2025(5) dt.30-01-2026
3/4
dated 16.09.2025 and 26.06.2025 respectively in Cr. Appeal (SJ)
Nos. 1142 of 2025 & 893 of 2025. The appellant is in custody
since 23.08.2024 and progress of the trial is very slow and up
till now only one witness has been examined.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party
No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and submits that appellant was
part of an unlawful assembly and was having weapon in his
hand and the member of that unlawful assembly fired upon the
informant’s husband due to which he died.
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, the appellant is in custody for about more
than 1½ year and there is no flight risk of the appellant,
accordingly, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the appellant.
8. Let the appellant, above named, be released on regular
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000 /- (rupees ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st cum Special
Judge (SC/ ST), Khagaria in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 112 / 2024 corresponding to Special SC / ST G.R. No.
98 / 2024 subject to the condition that the appellant shall remain
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4495 of 2025(5) dt.30-01-2026
4/4
present on each and every date during the course of trial and in
case of default on two consecutive dates without prior
permission of the trial court his bail bond shall liable to be
cancelled.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
praful/-
U T
Checking your session…