Patna High Court

Satynarayan Yadav @ JhunjhunversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court denied bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Satynarayan Yadav was arrested in connection with a FIR dated 21-06-2025 alleging that he shot the husband of an informant, resulting in death, and had previously thrown acid at the informant's elder daughter. He sought bail, claiming innocence and that the allegations were fabricated. The prosecution, supported by the informant's counsel, presented direct allegations, witness testimony, a post‑mortem report, and an inquest report linking the petitioner to the shooting. The court examined the seriousness of the offences under Sections 103 and 109 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and the supporting medical evidence. Concluding that the allegations were specific and substantiated, the court refused the bail application.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving alleged murder and violation of the Arms Act, given the presence of direct allegations and supporting medical evidence.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103, 109

Subjects

bail
murder
Arms Act
medical evidence
inquest report
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26566 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-546 Year-2025 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Satynarayan Yadav @ Jhunjhun S/o Late Rambabu Yadav Resident of
                 Village- South Street Near Chiraiyantand, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Sheonandan Pandit, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
                 For the Informant        :      Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   21-04-2026                    Heard Mr. Sheonandan Pandit, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   informant and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

                   28.03.2025 in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 546 of

                   2025, F.I.R. dated 21.06.2025 for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 103 and 109 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the

                   Arms Act.

                               3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner over a

                   petty dispute has fired upon the husband of the informant

                   resulting into his death. It is further alleged that earlier also this

                   petitioner has thrown acid upon the elder daughter of the

                   informant.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26566 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the

                      present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and

                      fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as

                      alleged in the FIR.

                                  5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as

                      learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed

                      the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from

                      perusal of the FIR it appears that there is direct and specific

                      allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the

                      deceased, namely, Suraj Yadav who happens to be uncle of the

                      petitioner. Apart from that, the witnesses have also supported

                      the case of the prosecution and the postmortem report of the

                      deceased also supports the allegation as alleged in the FIR.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                      that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner

                      supported by the medical evidence as well as inquest report, I

                      am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection

                      with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 546 of 2025 pending in the

                      court of learned ACJM-XI cum CJ(S.D) XI, Patna.

                                   7. Prayer is refused.


                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…