Patna High Court
Indradeo YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Indradeo Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18, 20 of the UAPA. The FIR does not name him, and his alleged involvement is based only on a confessional statement of another accused, which the petitioner’s counsel argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner is a member of a Maoist organization, has three prior cases, and has evaded arrest for over five years, raising a risk of absconding and tampering with evidence. The court considered these submissions and the seriousness of the charges under the anti‑terrorism law. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, finding no sufficient ground to grant regular bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of offences under the IPC, Arms Act and UAPA.
- Whether the absence of the petitioner’s name in the FIR and reliance on a confessional statement affect bail eligibility.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged affiliation with a Maoist organization and prior cases justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 16, 18, 20
Subjects
- bail
- UAPA
- anti‑terrorism law
- murder
- conspiracy
- arms possession
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10145 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2019 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Indradeo Yadav, S/o Goverdhan Yadav R/o Village - Barahmoriya, P.S -
Raushanganj, District - Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Praveen Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar- A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of
the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections
16, 18, 20 of UAPA Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in sum and substance the allegation is that from the house of
Santosh and Gopal cartridges were recovered and Arvind along
with Alok and 8-10 other unknown accused had called the
husband of the informant and fired indiscriminately killing him
on the spot.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10145 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
2/2
confessional statement of Santosh Yadav in police custody,
which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted
that petitioner is in custody since 29.09.2025
5. Learned A.P.P. Sri Rabindra Kumar opposes the
regular bail application and submits that petitioner is a Member
of Maoist Organization and the case is under UAPA Act and
petitioner also has antecedent of three cases, as such, if privilege
of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond or try to tamper with the evidence. It is also submitted
that the case is of the Year 2019 and the petitioner was
apprehended in September, 2025, which amply demonstrates
that petitioner was evading the law for more than five years.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…