Patna High Court
Pinku YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Pinku Yadav, applied for bail in a case involving multiple serious offences under the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act, alleging he fired at the informant’s mother, Sunita Devi, causing grievous injuries. The prosecution argued the injuries, including a charred wound and a depressed skull fracture, indicated intent and highlighted the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. The petitioner’s counsel contended the act was a result of sudden provocation, that there was no intention to cause grievous harm, and that he had been in custody since November 2025. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, directing the petitioner to renew his application after six months if the trial remains pending. The trial court was instructed to expedite the proceedings within the stipulated timeframe.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences and alleged intent.
- Whether the nature of the injuries demonstrates intentional firing.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(1), 308(2), 3(5), 352, 74
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- firearms
- grievous hurt
- Arms Act
- intent
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17060 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2025 Thana- Darhar District- Saharsa
======================================================
Pinku Yadav S/o Mahendra Yadav R/o Village - Virjain, P.S - Darhar, District
- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Darhar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 126(1), 115(2), 109, 74, 308(2), 352
and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner has fired at the mother of the informant namely,
Sunita Devi.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that from perusal of the FIR,
it transpires that the dispute arose out of a trivial issue and that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17060 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
the firing took place on sudden provocation. Learned counsel
further submits that from perusal of the injury report of Sunita
Devi, it transpires that she sustained the following injury:
(i) A lacerated wound measuring approximately 3 × 1
cm over the right frontal region, with active bleeding and
charred surrounding skin. An NCCT scan of the brain conducted
at a radiology centre on Gandhi Path, Saharsa, revealed an acute
epidural bleed measuring approximately 36.2 × 9.4 mm in the
right frontal lobe convexity, along with a depressed fracture of
the right frontal bone. The injury has been opined to be caused
by a firearm and is grievous in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner and there
was no repetition of firing. The petitioner has been languishing
in judicial custody since 20.11.2025.
6. Countering this, the application for bail is
vehemently opposed by the learned APP for the State and
submits that from perusal of the injury report, it will transpire
that the injury on the right frontal region had charred
surrounding skin, meaning the firing was made from a blank
range; it shows the intention of the petitioner. He also submits
that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent of two cases also.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17060 of 2026(3) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage,
however he may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the
trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same within the stipulated period of time.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…