Patna High Court
Rupesh Yadav @ Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The bail application was denied.
Summary
Rupesh Yadav was charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a fatal injury arising from a money dispute. He applied for regular bail after being in judicial custody since 31‑10‑2023, arguing delay in filing the FIR and prolonged detention. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the petitioner caused a fatal blow, that the trial had commenced and several witnesses had already been examined, and highlighting his five prior criminal antecedents. The Patna High Court, noting the specific and serious nature of the accusations and the petitioner’s criminal record, rejected the bail application. The Court directed the trial court to expedite the trial and allowed the petitioner to renew his bail plea if the trial is not concluded within nine months.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences (including causing a fatal injury) and his criminal antecedents.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the length of pre‑trial detention justify granting bail.
- Whether the progress of the trial (examination of witnesses) affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedent
- IPC
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- fatal injury
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22601 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2023 Thana- BASANHI District- Saharsa
======================================================
Rupesh Yadav @ Rupesh Kumar S/O Sri Gonu Yadav @ Gainu Yadav @
Genu Yadav @ Genoo Yadav R/O Village- Mokma Tola Bijulia, Ward No. 10,
P.S- Basnahi, Distt.- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 03-07-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody
in connection with Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2024, arising out
of Basnahi P.S. Case No. 139 of 2023, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. This is the second attempt made on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of regular bail, as earlier the prayer for bail
of the petitioner was turned down by this Court in Cr. Misc. No.
69823 of 2024 vide order dated 03.10.2024, considering the
specific nature of accusation of causing fatal blow as also the
criminal antecedent, which runs five in number.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22601 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
undoubtedly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail was
rejected on merit, but this fact cannot be ignored that the dispute
has cropped up on account of a meager money transaction,
besides there is delay in lodging of the FIR as also the fact that
the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since
31.10.2023; and as such, more than two years and seven months
have been lapsed.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the
petitioner is the author of the fatal injury, which led to death of
the informant and, moreover, the trial is commenced and out of
ten charge-sheet witnesses, four of them have been examined.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the specific nature of accusation of causing fatal blow, besides
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court in not
acceded to the prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer
for bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
7. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is
in judicial custody since 31.10.2023, it is expected that the
learned trial Court shall take all endeavours to conclude the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22601 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
trial, as early as possible.
8. It is made clear that if the trial is not concluded
within a period of nine months, the petitioner shall be at liberty
to renew his prayer for bail.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.