Patna High Court
Nirmal Yadav @ Nirmal Singh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the order rejecting bail is set aside, granting bail to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Nirmal Yadav, was charged with murder under Sections 103(1), 238(a) and 3(5) of the Bihar Non‑Applicable Statutes and Sections 3(ii)‑(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution alleged that the father of the respondent was missing and later found dead, and that the appellant, along with others, had killed him. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR was based solely on suspicion and a land‑dispute motive, and that there were no eyewitnesses; the only incriminating material was a confessional statement of another accused, Dinesh Yadav, implicating the appellant. The Special Judge had rejected the appellant’s bail application, but on appeal the High Court examined the lack of substantive evidence and the appellant’s clean criminal record. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the earlier order, and granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions to cooperate with the trial and not threaten witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the murder charge under the BNS and SC/ST (POA) Act.
- Whether the evidence, primarily a confessional statement of another accused and alleged enmity, is sufficient to justify denial of bail.
- Whether the appellant's right to liberty outweighs the prosecution's claim of a brutal murder.
Legislation cited
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(ii), 3(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- false implication
- confessional statement
- land dispute
- SC/ST Act
- criminal procedure
- evidentiary standards
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5102 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2025 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas
======================================================
Nirmal Yadav @ Nirmal Singh Yadav Son of Late Bigau Yadav R/o Village -
Auraiya, P.S. - Chenari, Dist. - Rohtas at Sasaram.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gurucharan Singh Kharwar @ Gurucharan Singh Son of Late Ramashish
Singh Kharwar R/o Village - Auraiya, P.S. - Chenari, Dist. - Rohtas at
Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the respondent.
2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST, Sasaram, Rohtas whereby the prayer for bail of
the appellant in connection with Chenari P.S. Case no. 334 of
2025 under Sections 103(1), 238(a) and 3(5) of BNS and
Sections 3(ii) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act was rejected.
3. The case of the prosecution is that father of the
respondent, namely, Ramashish Singh had gone for searching
tractor for ploughing the field on 7.08.2025 but he did not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5102 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/3
return. He was being searched in entire village. On 10.08.2025,
he came to know that the dead body of his father(deceased) was
found. It is further alleged that the appellant along with others
who are the enemies of the respondent might have killed the
deceased.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. From
perusal of the FIR, it is clear that entire FIR is based on
suspicion and there is no eye witness. Only ground is that there
was enmity and during investigation, it has also come that there
has been land dispute between the parties. Moreover, the
appellant is languishing in judicial custody since 19.08.2025
having no criminal antecedent.
5. The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P.
for the State and learned counsel for the respondent. She has
submitted that it is a brutal murder and some parts of the body
of the deceased are still missing but she could not connect the
appellant with the offence.
6. From perusal of the entire diary, it is also clear that
the witnesses who have been examined by I.O. during
investigation, have only reiterated the respondent. One Dinesh
Yadav has given his confessional statement and from perusal of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5102 of 2025(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/3
the confessional statement of Dinesh Yadav, it is clear that he
has stated that he along with this appellant and other accused
persons have killed the deceased. Save and except confessional
statement of Dinesh, there is nothing against the appellant.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case as stated
above, the Court is inclined to allow this appeal. Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.11.2025
is hereby set aside.
8. The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in
connection with Chenari P.S. Case No. 334 of 2025 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Special Judge SC/ST, Sasaram, Rohtas with the
condition that the appellant shall cooperate in trial and shall
not threaten any of the witnesses.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.