Patna High Court
Binod YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Binod Yadav, father‑in‑law of a deceased woman, applied for bail in a case registered under Section 140(3) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s confessional statement indicated he was privy to the commission of the offence and that he had threatened the informant, whose audio recording was admitted as evidence. The petitioner contended that he had no involvement in the day‑to‑day affairs of the couple and that the confessional statement did not show his complicity. The court noted that the trial was on the verge of conclusion, with most prosecution witnesses already examined, and that granting bail at this stage would jeopardise the pending proceedings. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with directions to produce the investigating officer for deposition and a provision to renew the bail plea if the trial is not concluded within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 140(3) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act given the alleged involvement indicated by his confessional statement.
- Whether the threat to the informant and the proximity of trial conclusion justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 140(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- confessional statement
- threat to informant
- trial nearing conclusion
- Section 140(3) B.N.S.
- father‑in‑law liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47516 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya
======================================================
Binod Yadav Son of Late Ramdhani yadav village- Nawadih, Ps- Dobhi, Dist-
Gaya .. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
For the informant : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Soni Kumari, Adv.
Amrit Lal, Adv.
Vaishnavi Kashyap, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 07-01-2026 Heard learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State as also learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bodh
Gaya P.S. Case No. 104 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Section-140(3) of B.N.S.
3. According to allegation, the deceased was done to
death by her family members. Her marriage was solemnized
with Vikash Kumar, son of the petitioner.
4. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is father-in-law of the deceased having no
concern with day-to-day affairs of the couple. Except the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47516 of 2025(4) dt.07-01-2026
2/3
confessional statement of the petitioner, there is nothing against
him in the entire case diary. Learned Sr. counsel has also
submitted that even if, his confessional statement, the petitioner
though implicated his own family members but his complicity
does not transpire from perusal of his confessional statement.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have submitted that from
perusal of confessional statement of the petitioner, it transpires
that he was privi to the commission of the occurrence. Learned
counsel for the informant has submitted that the trial is on the
verge of its conclusion. Except the investigating officer, all the
prosecution witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel has
also submitted that for recording his deposition, the
investigating officer appeared in the court but on that day, the
court was not available, so, he returned without get recorded his
deposition. It has also been submitted that the informant has
been examined as P.W.-6. During his examination-in-chief, he
has stated that he received telephonic threatening from the
petitioner, which was recorded in his mobile and the audio clip
was accepted in the court.
6. It transpires that the trial is on the verge of its
conclusion.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47516 of 2025(4) dt.07-01-2026
3/3
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
specially the fact that the trial is on the verge of its conclusion,
the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
8. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya is
directed to take every efforts for production of the I.O. in the
court for his deposition.
9. The learned court below is directed to record the
deposition of the investigating officer on the date of his
appearance itself.
10. It is expected that the trial shall be concluded
within a period of two months. If the trial is not concluded
within a period of two months, the petitioner may renew his
prayer for bail.
11. It is made clear that the petitioner will not
create any hindrance in disposal of the cases, otherwise the
petitioner will not be entitled to take the benefit of
observation made in this order.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
A.K.V.//-
U T
Checking your session…