Patna High Court
Guddu Yadav @ Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners, holding that the prolonged pre‑trial detention would amount to punitive incarceration contrary to Article 21.
Summary
The petitioners, seven Yadavs from Panda Bigha, were charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and have been in custody since 18 February 2025. Their earlier bail application was rejected, but they filed a second petition claiming that the trial is far from completion, with only seven of eleven witnesses examined, and that continued detention violates their fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court observed that the prolonged pre‑trial incarceration serves no purpose other than punitive detention and is antithetical to Article 21. Consequently, the Court granted bail to all petitioners on a bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties each, subject to conditions of family surety and mandatory appearance in court.
Issues considered
- Whether the continued pre‑trial detention of the petitioners violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether bail can be granted in offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 given the stage of the trial.
- Whether the petitioners’ criminal antecedents (or lack thereof) affect their entitlement to bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- criminal conspiracy
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- surety
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29772 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar S/o Shiv Nandan Yadav R/o Village- Panda
Bigha, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya,
2. Pramod Yadav @ Rahul Kumar S/o Chandradeo Yadav @ Chanderdeo
Yadav R/o Village- Panda Bigha, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya,
3. Dinesh Yadav S/o Late Bisambhar Yadav R/o Village- Panda Bigha, P.S.-
Buniyadganj, District- Gaya,
4. Shiv Nandan Yadav S/o Late Bisambhar Yadav R/o Village- Panda Bigha,
P.S.- Buniyadganj, District- Gaya,
5. Dharmendra Yadav S/o Dinesh Yadav R/o Village- Panda Bigha, P.S.-
Buniyadganj, District- Gaya,
6. Ramashray Yadav S/o Kuldeep Yadav R/o Village- Panda Bigha, P.S.-
Buniyadganj, District- Gaya,
7. Arvind Yadav S/o Dev Nandan Yadav R/o Village- Panda Bigha, P.S.-
Buniyadganj, District- Gaya,
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with
Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025 instituted for the offence
under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023. Earlier vide order dated 09.09.2023, passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 40117 of 2025 & Cr. Misc. No. 46266 of 2025, regular bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29772 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
of the petitioners was rejected by this Court with a liberty to
renew the prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
present one is the second attempt for grant of regular bail to the
petitioners. It is mainly submitted that charge in this case is
framed and till date, seven (7) out of eleven (11) witnesses have
been examined. It has been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that the petitioners are in custody since 18.02.2025,
and petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have no criminal antecedent each,
petitioner Nos. 6 & 7 bear one criminal antecedent each.
Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of
the trial being concluded in the near future. Learned counsel
goes on to submit that the continued incarceration of the
petitioners without conclusion of trial amounts to a gross
violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated by Hon’ble
Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, period of custody of the petitioners and taking into
account the fact that continued detention of the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29772 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
would serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial
incarceration, which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to
the petitioners.
6. Let the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Buniyadganj P.S.
Case No. 63 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioners.
(II) The petitioners shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.