Patna High Court
Bhajo yadav @ Ramesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner as he has a clean antecedent and no specific allegation of assault, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Bhajo Yadav (Ramesh Yadav) was arrested in connection with a 2020 case involving murder under Sections 307, 302/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The prosecution alleged that he and co‑accused hurled bombs at an informant’s husband, resulting in death and injury. The petitioner argued he has a clean antecedent and that no specific assault or overt act is directly attributed to him, noting that other co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed the bail application. The court, considering the lack of specific allegation against the petitioner and the bail granted to similarly situated co‑accused, ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and several conditions, including cooperation with the trial and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder and explosive offences in the absence of a specific allegation of assault against him.
- Whether the clean antecedent of the petitioner and the bail granted to co‑accused justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Explosive Substances Act, 1908 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Explosive Substances Act
- criminal antecedent
- co‑accused
- trial cooperation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1840 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2020 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Bhajo yadav @ Ramesh Yadav Son of Jagdish Yadav R/o Village - Amjhar,
P.S. - Fullidumar, Dist. - Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepankar Raj, Advocate
Ms. Shivalika Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Deepankar Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
13.09.2025 in connection with Amarpur (Fullidumar) P.S. Case
No. 298 of 2020, F.I.R. dated 10.06.2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 307, 302/34 of the I.P.C. and section
3/4 Explosive Act.
3. According to prosecution case, petitioner and other
co-accused person came and started abusing the informant’s
husband and on protest, hurled two bombs upon informant’s
husband resultantly her husband died at the spot while grand
daughter of the informant sustained injuries on the leg.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1840 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
implicated in the present case. Although, the petitioner is named
in the F.I.R. but there is no specific allegation of any assault or
overt act attributed against the petitioner rather the specific
allegation of overt act is attributed against co-accused Pramod
Yadav and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Pappu
Yadav and Raju Yadav have been granted regular bail by
different coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order
dated 10.03.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3043 of 2021 and co-
accused, namely, Anandi Yadav has been granted bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.04.2021
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2540 of 2024. He further submits that
the police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
petitioner has clean antecedent, there is no specific allegation of
any assault or over act attributed against the petitioner and
similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by
different Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1840 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C.,
Banka in connection with Amarpur (Fullidumar) P.S. Case No.
298 of 2020, with the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…