Patna High Court
Pramod Kumar @ Pramod YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The petition for regular bail was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Kumar, sought regular bail in a case involving multiple serious offences under the IPC and the Arms Act, arising from an incident where a newly elected MLA and his son allegedly fired at a crowd, resulting in a death. The petitioner contended he was falsely implicated and that no allegation of firing was made against him, while the State opposed bail citing the seriousness of the charges. The court noted that the petitioner had not surrendered earlier, leading to a prolonged delay of twenty years, and that only one witness had been examined. Considering the gravity of the offences, the lack of surrender, and the prolonged custodial period, the court found no merit in granting bail. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected and the trial was directed to be expedited.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the serious nature of the offences and the prolonged custodial period
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 325, 379
Subjects
- regular bail
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- political figure
- murder
- trial delay
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32609 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2005 Thana- ATRI District- Gaya
======================================================
Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Yadav S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav R/o Madho
Bigha (Bathani), P.S.- Nimchak Bathani, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anjani Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the State : Mr.J.N. Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
8 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in
connection with Session Trial No. 920 of 2024 arising out of Atri
P.S. Case No. 15 of 2005, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 302, 379 of the IPC
and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to the allegations, the informant was
standing on the road. Meanwhile, 14 to 15 vehicles coming from
Wazirganj were celebrating with rangh-abir and stopped near the
village. The newly elected MLA Rajendra Yadav, along with his
son (the petitioner), armed with rifles, guns, etc., and accompanied
by hundreds of supporters, came there. The specific allegation
against co-accused Rajendra Yadav is that he fired, which hit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32609 of 2025(8) dt.04-02-2026
2/2
Mintu Kumari, the sister of the informant, resulting in her death.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated.
There is no allegation of firing against the petitioner, and a number
of innocent persons have been implicated. He has further
submitted that the co-accused Rajendra Yadav has been convicted.
The petitioner is under custody since 18.10.2024.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail.
6. The petitioner didn’t surrender, and due to his
abscondence, the case lingered for a considerable period of twenty
years. The petitioner is under custody since 18.10.2024, and only
one witness has been examined.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, the petitioner doesn’t deserve the privileges for
bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.
8. The learned court below is directed to expedite the
trial.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…