Patna High Court
Shambhu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions, as the investigation produced no incriminating evidence and the magistrate’s cognizance was not based on any material.
Summary
Shambhu Yadav petitioned the Patna High Court seeking bail in a 2003 case (Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act) alleging his involvement in a murder. He argued that the police investigation found no incriminating evidence, as reflected in the original charge‑sheet (14‑09‑2003) and a supplementary charge‑sheet (30‑07‑2018), neither of which sent him to trial. Despite this, a magistrate took cognizance on 03‑08‑2018 and issued a summons on 03‑09‑2024 without disclosing any material justifying the action. The State opposed bail, but the Court noted the absence of incriminating material and the lack of basis for the magistrate’s cognizance. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, including a bail bond, sureties, and compliance with procedural safeguards.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the investigation has yielded no incriminating material against the petitioner.
- Whether the magistrate’s taking of cognizance without disclosed material is sufficient to justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- cognizance
- charge sheet
- IPC
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- magistrate
- preliminary investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11906 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2003 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui
======================================================
Shambhu Yadav S/o Brahamdeo Yadav Resident of Village- Dhamana, P.S.-
Jhajha, Dist.- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No.20 of 2003, dated
25.02.2003 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act.
3. As per the FIR, the allegation against the
petitioner is that he is involved in the killing of informant’s
husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. He further submits that the investigation against the
petitioner was concluded and charge-sheet was filed in the year
2003, to be more specific on 14.09.2003, which is appended as
Annexure-P/2, and the petitioner was not sent up for trial. It is
next submitted that investigation continued and again a
supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.07.2018 was filed, in
which also the petitioner was not sent up for trial. It is the case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11906 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate, differing with the
police report, has taken cognizance on 03.08.2018 against the
petitioner and others. From the order taking cognizance, it is not
clear as to what materials the learned Magistrate found to
indicate complicity of this petitioner, pursuant to which
summons were issued on 03.09.2024. For that reason, the
petitioner has filed this case for taking appropriate remedy in
accordance with law. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner
has no criminal antecedents.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that upon investigation the
police did not find anything incriminating against this petitioner,
owing to which in the first charge-sheet as well as in the
supplementary charge-sheet the petitioner was not sent up for
trial, but without referring to any such materials on the basis of
which cognizance is said to have been taken the petitioner has
been summoned and directed to participate in the trial, let the
above-named petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11906 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Jamui/
Successor Court in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No.20 of
2003, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/ personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…