Patna High Court
Chandrahash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court dismissed the bail application, finding no ground to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Chandrahash Yadav was charged under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting dead the cousin of an informant and injuring the informant. The petitioner, who has been in judicial custody since 23 May 2023, sought regular bail for the third time after two earlier bail applications were rejected. The prosecution presented a post‑mortem report showing seven entry and exit gunshot wounds and witnesses corroborating the allegation that the petitioner and co‑accused fired the fatal shots. The petitioner contended innocence and argued that trial delays justified bail, while the State and the informant’s counsel emphasized the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s role in delaying proceedings. The court, after considering the direct allegations and forensic evidence, found no ground to grant bail and dismissed the application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial. The court also noted that the petitioner could renew his bail plea if the trial is further delayed by the prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused in a murder case with substantial forensic and eyewitness evidence.
- Whether the court can revisit its earlier bail denial in light of alleged trial delays.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged role in delaying the trial affects his bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- regular bail
- trial delay
- postmortem evidence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13299 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2023 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Chandrahash Yadav Son of Sri Gartu Yadav Resident of village - Taralahi,
P.S.- Bahadurpur, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. This is the third attempt of the petitioner for grant
of regular bail in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No.
216 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 302,
307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the has been rejected
twice vide orders dated 03.01.2024 and 22.11.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 65063/2023 and Cr. Misc. No. 61422/2024
respectively which reads as under:-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 216 of 2023
registered for the offence under Sections 302, 307/34 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The following order was passed on
03.01.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 65063 of 2023 by a co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13299 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
ordinate Bench:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in
connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 216
of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections
302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, the
petitioner along with three co-accused persons
are said to have shot dead the cousin of the
informant. The informant also sustained injury in
the said incident.
4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent
and committed no offence. He has falsely been
implicated in this case. According to the
prosecution case, co-accused Garthu Yadav
firstly fired upon the head of thedeceased by his
pistol due to which he died. It is also submitted
that the petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 23.5.2023.
5. Learned APP appearing for the
state and learned counsel for the informant have
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail
and submitted that the petitioner is named in the
FIR who also along with co-accused Abhinash
Yadav, Abhinandan Yadav and Garthu Yadav has
specifically been alleged to fire upon the
deceased Ravi Singh due to which he died.
Postmortem report corroborates the prosecution
case in which seven entry & seven exit wound
have been mentioned which were caused by
firearm. It is also submitted that the witnesses of
this case have supported the prosecution version.
6. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties and considering the nature of
allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for
bail stands rejected.
7. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon
as possible. ”
4. It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody
since 23.05.2023 and therefore he deserves bail.
5. The learned senior counsel for the
informant; Shri Krishna Pd. Singh and the learned APP
for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13299 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
petitioner and have submitted that the informant is ready
to cooperate in the trial but because of the delaying
tactics of the petitioner, the trial could not commence.
6. The learned senior counsel for the
informant has further submitted that after rejection on
03.01.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 65063 of 2023, a discharge
application was filed in the Trial Court on behalf of the
petitioner which has been dismissed recently and
therefore, the trial could not commence. He further
submits that the prosecution will cooperate in the trial
and will produce the witnesses on the date fixed.
7. Considering the direct allegation against
the petitioner and the fact that seven gun shot injuries
have been found on the deceased, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner, therefore, this application for
bail is dismissed.
8. The Court below is directed to expedite the
trial. If the trial is delayed by the prosecution, the
petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the trial is delayed, therefore, the petitioner may
be granted bail.
5. Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for
the informant submits that it is the petitioner who is delaying the
trial by filing two discharge applications.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds no
ground to review its earlier order.
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed again.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…