Patna High Court
Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
Kumar Yadav was arrested in connection with a murder case (Balia P.S. Case No. 48 of 2022) alleging that he, along with others, shot his brother Dilip Yadav, violating Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the informant was not an eye‑witness, and that the charge‑sheet was based merely on suspicion, noting that co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, pointing to direct allegations, medical evidence, and the petitioner’s prior criminal case. The Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the evidence on record, and the petitioner’s antecedents, and concluded that bail could be granted with strict conditions to ensure trial cooperation and prevent tampering. Accordingly, the Court ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with several conditions.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to an accused of murder, conspiracy, and illegal arms possession under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act?
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged lack of eyewitness evidence and alleged false implication justify bail despite the seriousness of the offences?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- illegal arms
- IPC
- Arms Act
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4519 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2022 Thana- BALIYA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Kumar Yadav S/o Late Rameshwar Yadav @ Late Faudari Yadav Resident of
Village- Lakhminia, P.S.- Ballia, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amar Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
: Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 15-05-2026 Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
26.04.2025 in connection with Balia P.S. Case No. 48 of 2022
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
12.02.2022 the elder brother of informant namely, Dilip Yadav
went out of his house to attend the marriage function at about 8
P.M. and also Arvind Kumar and Shrawan Kumar informed the
informant by his mobile phone that Dilip Yadav has sustained
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4519 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
2/4
bullet wound. On getting this information the informant rushed
for the spot and after reaching the spot he saw that his brother
Dilip Yadav is lying on the ground and Kumar Yadav
(petitioner), Fanikant Yadav, Nitish Yadav are firing on his
brother. Thereafter Kumar Yadav(petitioner) fired on his
brother's neck from point blank range and therafter Fanikant
also fired on his neck from point blank range but hearing the
noise of bullet the son of Fanikant, Gaurav Kumar, Mahendra
Yadav, Renu Devi Etc came there along with Aarti Devi. Then
Renu Devi identified Dilip Yadav on this Mahendra Yadav kill
him at once or he will fled away. Then Rustam Kumar came
there and caught the brother's waist. Thereafter Aarti Devi said
that since he has already died therefore they ran away. Informant
has claimed that all the aforesaid persons has killed in
conspiracy with each other and his brother has died at the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is
next submitted that from perusal of the FIR it appears that the
informant is not an eye-witness but he has claimed that he is an
eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. It is next submitted that
even no one has seen the occurrence and petitioner has been
made an accused in this case merely on the basis of suspicion.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4519 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
3/4
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the co-
accused persons, namely, Aarti Devi and Randhir Yadav, whose
names have also been transpired in the FIR, have been granted
bail vide orders dated 26.09.2022 and 04.07.2023 passed in Cr.
Misc. Nos. 37242 of 2022 and 3998 of 2023 respectively by
Coordinate Benches of this Court. It is next submitted that the
police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and
petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State
and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that from perusal
of the FIR it appears that there is direct and specific allegation
of firing attributed against the petitioner supported by medical
evidence. Apart from that petitioner has antecedent of one case
other than the present case.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class, Begusarai in connection with Balia P.S.
Case No. 48 of 2022, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4519 of 2026(5) dt.15-05-2026
4/4
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.