Patna High Court
Biru Rai @ Biru YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to bond and conditions.
Summary
Biru Rai was arrested on 18‑12‑2024 in connection with a 2019 case involving alleged assault on an informant and his father, the latter presumed dead. The FIR charges him under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 363, 365, 34 and Arms Act section 27, based primarily on the confessional statement of co‑accused Dharo Rai. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to a land dispute and that no material evidence besides the co‑accused’s statement links him to the crime. The State opposed bail, noting the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s other pending cases. The Court observed that similarly situated co‑accused had been granted bail by other benches and considered the length of the petitioner’s custody. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail with a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding trial attendance, evidence tampering, and verification of criminal antecedents. The bail order was issued subject to cancellation if conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious charges and limited evidentiary basis.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused suffices to justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 363, 365, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- pre‑trial detention
- evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10325 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2019 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna
======================================================
Biru Rai @ Biru Yadav Son of Kapil Yadav @ Kapil Rai Resident of Village -
Manjhala Bigha, Police Station - Pandarak, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned APP for the
State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
18.12.2024, in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 25 of
2019, F.I.R. dated 07.03.2019 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 363, 365, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with
other co-accused persons started abusing and assaulted the
informant and his father. While the informant managed to escape,
his father was caught by the five named accused persons including
the petitioner and also five unknown persons. Thereafter his father
was not to be found. The informant suspects that his father has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10325 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/4
been killed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in
the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not
committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. and the petitioner
has been made accused in the present due to admitted land dispute
between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused person namely
Dharo Rai @ Dharmendra Kumar and except the confessional
statement of co-accused person, no other cogent material has come
during investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in
the present occurrence. He further submits that the person who has
confessed the name of the petitioner, namely, Dharo Rai @
Dharmendra Kumar has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
77591 of 2023, another co-accused person namely Shravan Mahto
@ Sraban Mahto has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 31.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
49228 of 2021, another co-accused person, namely, Dayanand Rai
@ Dayanand Prasad has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10325 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/4
8748 of 2025, another co-accused person, namely, Shatrughan Roy
has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 01.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36121 of 2025
respectively. He further submits that the police after
investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the
petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2024.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that the petitioner carries three more cases other than
the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of
the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending
matters.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have been
granted bail by a different Coordinate Benches of this Court as
well as period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be
released on 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barh, Patna
in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 25 of 2019, subject to
the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10325 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
4/4
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on
his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his
bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.