Patna High Court
Feku Yadav @ FekuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the regular bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Feku Yadav, was charged under Sections 121(1), 121(2), 109, 132 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at police while attempting to flee in a vehicle. An earlier bail application was rejected on 26‑11‑2025. The petitioner filed a second bail application seeking renewal of regular bail, but failed to disclose the current stage of the trial. The court observed that before filing a fresh bail petition, counsel must ascertain and state the trial stage, which was not done. Considering the seriousness of the offences and the procedural lapse, the court declined to grant bail and dismissed the application, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh application with proper details.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with offences under Sections 121, 109, 132, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the failure to disclose the stage of the trial in a bail application warrants its rejection.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 121(1), 121(2), 132, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- waging war against the state
- arms act
- trial stage
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18263 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-625 Year-2024 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Feku Yadav @ Feku S/O Lorik Yadav Resident Of Village- Bhawani Bigha,
P.S.- Chiksaura, Dist.- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Ghosi P.S. Case No. 625 of 2024 registered
for the offence under Sections 121(1), 121(2), 109, 132 and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 26.11.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 64187 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection
with Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 625 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 121(1), 121(2), 109,
132, 3 (5) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on
26.12.2024 at 7 P.M. police on duty near Tarwa More
signaled a Bolero pickup (BR01GK-8687) to stop, but it
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18263 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
fled towards Chandhariya. Police chased it, and at
Govindpur More, the accused fired at police with
intention to kill them. Near Sant Tulsi Das High School,
the accused abandoned the vehicle and escaped. The
vehicle was seized and an FIR lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in
the case. Learned counsel further submits that
petitioner namely, Feku Yadav is accused in five more
similar cases and is in custody since 14.05.2025 and
petitioner namely, Mantu Kumar is accused in 11
criminal cases and he is in custody since 25.05.2025. The
petitioners undertake to co-operate in the case/ trial.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners on the
ground that petitioners are involved in firing at the
police party.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, this application stands
dismissed.
4. This bail application has been filed seeking renewal
of the petitioner’s prayer for regular bail. When this Court
enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding
the present stage of the trial, he expressed ignorance on the
same.
5. It is expected that before filing a bail petition
particularly one which had earlier been rejected, lawyers must
obtain proper instructions regarding the stage of the trial and
specifically disclose the same in the bail application. The same
has not been done in the present case.
6. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to grant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18263 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail stands rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file a
fresh bail application mentioning the stage of the trial by
annexing the latest order sheets.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…