Patna High Court
Vinod Yadav @ Sardar Yadav @ Binod YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court declined to grant bail, holding that the gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents warranted continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinod Yadav, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged extortion, robbery and related offences. The High Court had previously rejected two earlier bail applications, noting the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the charges. In the present application, the petitioner argued that charges had been framed and the trial was pending, contending innocence and political victimisation. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s involvement in multiple cases, including a Section 392 offence. The Court, after reviewing the submissions, found the offences grave, the trial already underway, and the petitioner a hardened criminal, and therefore refused to grant bail, dismissing the application and directing police to ensure witness attendance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the seriousness of the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387 and 379/34 IPC
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents and pending cases preclude bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 342, 379, 387
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- extortion
- robbery
- criminal antecedents
- trial proceedings
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10422 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-155 Year-2024 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya
======================================================
Vinod Yadav @ Sardar Yadav @ Binod Yadav S/o Lakhandev Yadav @
Akhan Yadav R/o vill - Dhanchhui, PS- Konch, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the third attempt on behalf of the petitioner
for grant of bail in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 155 of
2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341,
342, 323, 307, 387, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail applications of the petitioner were
rejected twice vide orders dated 10.07.2024 and 09.05.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 47088 of 2024 and 24014 of 2025
respectively.
4. The following order was passed on 09.05.2025 in
Cr. Misc. No. 24014 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10422 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Konch
P.S. Case No.155 of 2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387 and
379/34of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the
petitioner has been rejected vide order dated
10.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 47088 of 2024,
which reads as follows:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
the present case registered for the offence under
Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 387, 379/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner is accused of demanding extortion
money and took away one mobile phone, chain
and Rs. 30,000/- from the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has
falsely been implicated due to village politics.
Petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted
that petitioner is accused in three more cases
which includes the case under Section 392 of the
I.P.C.
6. I have considered the submissions
of the parties. Petitioner appears to be a
hardened criminal and considering the serious
allegation of extortion and the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is hereby rejected”
4. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that charge has been
framed but the trial is still pending.
5. This application is dismissed with a
direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police,
Gaya to ensure the attendance of witnesses in the
trial.
6. Let a copy of this order be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10422 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
communicated to the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Gaya, forthwith through FAX or e-mail for
its compliance.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges have been framed in the trial.
7. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…