Patna High Court
Dindayal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Dindayal Yadav was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged murder attempt, criminal conspiracy and illegal possession of arms, charged under Sections 109 and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 (corresponding to IPC 307 and 120(B)) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He sought regular bail for the second time after an earlier denial, arguing that he was not named in the FIR, no incriminating material was recovered from him, and the only basis for his accusation was CCTV footage. The prosecution contended that two unknown persons shot the informant's son, and that the investigation was ongoing with several charge‑sheet witnesses yet to be examined. The High Court noted the lack of substantive evidence, the pending examination of the investigating officer, and the petitioner’s clean antecedents, and therefore granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to his physical presence in court. The order emphasized that bail was appropriate given the stage of the investigation and the nature of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being charged with serious offences under IPC 307, IPC 120(B) and the Arms Act.
- Whether the reliance solely on CCTV footage and the pending examination of key witnesses justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109, 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 307
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- IPC 307
- IPC 120B
- Arms Act
- CCTV evidence
- pre‑trial detention
- serious offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40852 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2025 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Dindayal Yadav, age 30 years, Male, Son of Late Shivnandan Yadav @
Shivanand Yadav @ Shiv Nandan Yadav @ Shiv Nand Yadav, Resident of
Village- Bihrauna, P.S.- Baheri, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 790 of 2025 arising out of Mithanpura P.S.
Case No. 108 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable
under Sections 109 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 corresponding
to Section 307 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. This is the 2nd attempt for regular bail of this
petitioner. Earlier the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner
was rejected by this Court passed in Cr. Misc. No. 73607 of
2025 vide order dated 21.01.2026 with an observation that the
petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court
after completion of one year of custody.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40852 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
2/3
4. As per the prosecution case, two unknown
criminals came and shot the son of the informant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has
falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is
not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating articles has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner
and he has been surfaced in this only on the basis of mere
suspicion. He further submits that during investigation the
investigating officer observed the CCTV footage and came to
the conclusion that the son of the informant was shot. He next
submits that the petitioner is neither put on Test Identification
Parade nor there is any recovery of any incriminating articles.
Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the
petition is in custody since 13.05.2025.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
regular bail of the petitioner.
7. From perusal of the FIR and also perused the
impugned order dated 16.05.2026 passed by the learned 3rd
District and Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, it appears
that the petitioner has been made accused only on the basis of
CCTV footage. From perusal of the impugned order, it also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40852 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026
3/3
appears that four charge sheet witnesses have been examined
out of which only one witness i.e., the Investigating Officer is
yet to be examined and there is no chance for disposal of this
case in near future, so considering all these aspects of the case
and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am
inclined to grant regular bail to the above named petitioner.
8. Accordingly the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner above named be
released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Muzaffarpur / Concerned Court in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 790 of 2025 arising out of Mithanpura P.S. Case No.
108 of 2025, subject of the condition that the petitioner shall
remain physically present on each and every date as fixed by the
trial Court till conclusion of the trial.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.