Patna High Court
Anil YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was denied because the accused is the principal offender in a serious offence and the trial is already underway.
Summary
The petitioner, Anil Yadav, sought bail for offences including murder, attempt to murder, and illegal possession of arms arising from an alleged shooting incident near Tilkoda. The prosecution alleged that Yadav and co‑accused opened fire on the informant’s husband, causing multiple gunshot wounds. The petitioner argued that the post‑mortem report showed only two entry wounds, questioning the reliability of the informant’s testimony, and highlighted that he had been in custody since February 2026. The State contended that Yadav was the principal assailant and cited Supreme Court precedent discouraging bail in serious offences once trial proceedings have begun. The court, noting the seriousness of the charges and the stage of the trial, declined to grant bail, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months or after the informant’s evidence is examined. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder and arms‑offence case at the current stage of trial
- Whether the evidentiary material, including the post‑mortem report and witness testimony, undermines the prosecution’s case
- Applicability of the Supreme Court’s stance on bail in serious offences
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 341, 342, 386, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- arms offence
- Indian Penal Code
- evidence
- trial stage
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19992 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2023 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura
======================================================
Anil Yadav Son of Late Narayan Yadav Resident of Village- Pokhram Ward
No. 3, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate.
Ms. Pooja Prasad, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 02-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Murliganj P.S. Case No. 200 of 2023 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 342, 386, 302, 120B, 504 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
informant, along with her husband, was going to Murliganj on his
bike, and as soon as they reached about 1.5 km from their house in
the village of Tilkoda, near the canal, they saw that the petitioner,
Baua Yadav, Shravan Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Sunil Verma, Nitish
Kumar, and others, being armed with weapons in their hands,
surrounded the husband of the informant. The informant and her
husband got down from the bike, and it is further alleged that Anil
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19992 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
2/3
Yadav (the petitioner) fired, which hit the chest of the informant’s
husband, and after that, Baua Yadav and Nitish Kumar also fired,
which hit in different parts of the body.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier
the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected by the learned
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2025 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 13060 of 2025. He further submits that similarly
situated co-accused namely, Nitish Kumar @ Boua Yadav has
been granted bail by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 07.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54044 of
2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that from perusal of the post-mortem report, it is clear
that the doctor conducting autopsy of the deceased have found
only two entry wounds, whereas there is an allegation that three
gunshots were fired at the deceased. He also submits that this goes
to show that the informant is not an eye witness to the said
occurrence. He further submits that from perusal of the report of
the learned trial court, it is clear that out of 14 witnesses, a total of
6 witnesses have been examined in this case. He further submits
that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since
17.02.2026.
6. Learned APP for the State has further submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19992 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
3/3
the petitioner is the main assailant in the present case. He has also
relied on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr passed in SLP(Criminal) No. 13378
of 2024 wherein in para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court has held which
is being quoted hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder,
dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the
prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court
be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be
loath in entertaining the bail application of the
accused.
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 or after the examination of the informant if he does not
support the case of the prosecution, whichever is earlier.
8. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.