Patna High Court
Raushan @ Raushan Raj @ Raushan Kumar Yadav @ Raushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was denied because the petitioner failed to explain his role in the shooting and no fresh ground for release was shown, given the gravity of the offence and the trial’s advanced stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Raushan Yadav, was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly calling and shooting the deceased. He applied for regular bail, arguing that he had been in custody since 23 May 2025 and that the trial was nearing completion with only one witness left. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged murder and the lack of any fresh ground for release. The Court noted that the petitioner had not explained how the shooting occurred, and that the gravity of the offence and the stage of the trial did not warrant bail. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, reiterating that its observations were limited to this application and did not prejudice the trial’s merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the offence and the stage of the trial
- Whether the petitioner has provided any fresh ground or explanation to justify bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- arms act
- trial stage
- gravity of offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25714 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Raushan @ Raushan Raj @ Raushan Kumar Yadav @ Raushan Kumar S/o
Late Jai Jai Ram Yadav @ Jhoho @ Jhojho Yadav Resident of village -
Samastipur Tola, Sadipur Tola, Sadipur, Ward No. 02, P.S - Sahebpur Kamal,
District - Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal
P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025 registered for the offence under
Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 61085 of 2025, which reads as under:
“Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The
petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25714 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
registered for the offence under Sections 103(1),
3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner is accused of killing the deceased. It is
alleged that the petitioner called the deceased
and shot at him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has
not committed any offence. The petitioner is in
custody since 23.05.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail.
6. It is for the petitioner to explain
how the deceased was shot at but the petitioner
has not explained the same, therefore, the role of
the petitioner in this crime cannot be doubted.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to
the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application for
regular bail is hereby rejected.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 23.05.2025 and therefore, he
deserves bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted
that the trial is on the verge of conclusion and only one witness
is left to be examined.
6. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that
the trial is on the verge of conclusion and no fresh ground for
grant of bail is made out, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25714 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.