Patna High Court
Vishnudeo Yadav @ Vishundeo Yadav @ Vishundev Yadav @ Vishnudev YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The application for regular bail is rejected.
Summary
Vishnudeo Yadav, a 75‑year‑old petitioner, sought regular bail for offences under sections 302, 307, 324, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he had been in custody since July 2023 and that the trial was far from completion with several witnesses yet to be examined. The prosecution alleged that Yadav, armed with a rifle, fired at Jitendra Kumar, causing his death, and that two persons were killed in the incident. The petitioner highlighted contradictions in witness statements, his advanced age, paralysis and medical ailments, and offered to comply with any bail conditions. The State opposed bail, noting that ten of eighteen charge‑sheet witnesses had already been examined, three had died, and the trial was nearing its conclusion with Yadav being the principal assailant. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the progress of the trial, and ordered the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner pending trial for murder and related offences under the IPC and Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 324, 326, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- medical condition
- witness examination
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15418 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2006 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada
======================================================
Vishnudeo Yadav @ Vishundeo Yadav @ Vishundev Yadav @ Vishnudev
Yadav S/o Late Visheshvar Yadav R/o Village- Mananiya Tari, PS- Kawakol,
District - Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhu Prasun, Advocate
Ms. Renu Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Shashikant Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Richa Rajiv Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
5 01-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of
regular bail in connection with S.Tr. no.699 of 2023 (arising out of
Kauwakol P.S. Case no.26 of 2006) registered under sections 302,
307, 324, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, it is stated that the five
named accused persons including the petitioner herein came
variously armed with firearms. As a result of firing resorted to
by the petitioner with his rifle, one Jitendra Kumar received
gunshot injuries and subsequently died. In the occurrence, two
persons are said to have been killed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15418 of 2026(5) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that t he
earlier applications for bail of the petitioner were rejected on
several occasions, the last being vide order dated 26.3.2025 passed
in Cr. Misc. no.7812 of 2025 directing the learned trial Court to
expedite the trial. It is further submitted that inspite of the
petitioner having remained in custody since 12.7.2023 for almost 3
years, there are several witnesses who still remain to be examined
and the trial is nowhere near its conclusion. Learned counsel
submits that there are serious contradictions in the deposition of
the witnesses insofar as while one witness states that the firing
took place with the pistol, the other witness claims the firing to
have taken place with a rifle. The petitioner, who is an old man
aged about 75 years, is suffering from various medical issues
including paralysis. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the
trial and to abide by any conditions which may be laid by this
Court for his release on bail.
5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for
the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel
for the informant as per oral instructions received submits that
out of eighteen chargesheet witnesses, ten have been examined
while two are not in a position to depose in the learned Court
below because of medical and other issues. Three are reported to
have died. It is thus submitted that besides the petitioner being
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15418 of 2026(5) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
the sole assailant of the deceased, the trial is near its conclusion.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in
the F.I.R of Jitendra Kumar having died as a result of firing
resorted to by the petitioner and the trial having proceeded, the
Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the
application is rejected.
7. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.