Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the seriousness of the offences and the circumstances warranted continued detention.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Yadav, was arrested in connection with a violent dispute over an agricultural field that resulted in the death of an informant who was allegedly assaulted with a kudali. He faced multiple charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including sections relating to murder, assault, and other serious offences. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was innocent, that no incriminating material was found on him, that there was an eight‑day delay in filing the FIR, and that he had no prior criminal record, citing that a co‑accused had been granted bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation that the petitioner’s assault caused the victim’s death. The court, after considering the gravity of the offences and the circumstances, refused to grant bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged homicide and multiple serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of material evidence in the petitioner’s possession, and absence of prior criminal record justify bail.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused influences the bail decision for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 118, 126(2), 303(2), 324(4), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 75
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- assault
- homicide
- agrarian dispute
- serious offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2938 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2024 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani
======================================================
Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Sunil Yadav Son of Tirpit Narayan Yadav @ Tirpeet
Narayan Yadav @ Tripti Narayan Yadav R/o Village - Darah Nawtoliya, P.S.-
Bheja, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Rita Verma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bheja
P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable
under Sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 75, 303(2),
324(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and later on Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that over a dispute
relating to agriculture field, it is stated that the accused persons
including the petitioner came variously armed and, on the order
of co-accused Tirpeet Narayan Yadav, co-accused Sushil Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2938 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/3
and Hareram Yadav caught hold of the informant while the
petitioner gave a blow with kudali. The injured subsequently
died in course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner also submitted that general and omnibus allegation
has been made against the petitioner. It is next submitted that
there is delay of eight days in lodging the FIR. The petitioner is
in custody since 07.05.2025 and has got no criminal antecedent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that other
co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide
order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54931 of 2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that there is specific
allegation of assault by means of kudali against the petitioner
due to which the injured has succumbed to his injury. Hence, the
petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2938 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
3/3
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the Trial.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…