Patna High Court
DINESH YADAV @ DINESH SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court held that bail must be granted as the prosecution’s case was weak and primarily based on a confessional statement without corroborative evidence.
Summary
The appellant, Dinesh Yadav, was charged with murder under Sections 103(1), 238(a) and 3(5) of the Bihar Non‑Applicable Statutes (BNS) and Sections 3(ii) to 3(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Offences) Act, following the death of the respondent's father. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by a land dispute and enmity, participated in the killing, relying mainly on the respondent’s statements and a confessional statement by the appellant. The defence argued that the FIR was based solely on suspicion, lacked eyewitness testimony, and that the appellant had no prior criminal record. The trial court denied bail, but on appeal the High Court examined the evidentiary material and found the case against the appellant weak, noting the reliance on a confessional statement and the absence of corroborative evidence. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court’s order, and granted bail on condition of a bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the provisions of the BNS and SC/ST (POA) Act given the nature of the alleged offence and the evidentiary material.
- Whether the confessional statement of the accused, in the absence of corroborative evidence, is sufficient to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Non-Applicable Statutes (BNS) — s. 103(1), 238(a), 3(5)
- SC/ST (Prevention of Offences) Act — s. 3(ii), 3(iii), 3(iv), 3(v)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- land dispute
- SC/ST Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.98 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2025 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas
======================================================
Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh Singh S/o Late Sheomangal Yadav @ Late Sheo
Mangal Yadav R/o vill - Auraeya, P.S.- Chenari, Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gurucharan Singh S/o Late Ramashish Singh R/o vill - Auraiya, P.S.-
Chenari, Distt.- Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Abhilasha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 25-06-2026 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 18.11.2025 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST, Rohtas, Sasaram 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.98 of 2026(4) dt.25-06-2026
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. He has
submitted that it is a brutal murder and some parts of the body of
the deceased are still missing but he 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
statement of respondent. The appellant has given his
confessional statement and from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.98 of 2026(4) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
confessional statement of the appellant, it is clear that he has
stated that he along with this other accused persons have killed
the deceased. Save and except confessional statement of the
appellant, there is nothing against him.
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 18.11.2025
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, Rohtas, Sasaram with the
condition that the appellant shall cooperate in trial and shall
not threaten any of the witnesses.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.