Patna High Court
Surith YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.
Summary
Surith Yadav, the father‑in‑law of the deceased Renu Devi, was charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly murdering and dismembering her. He applied for regular bail for the second time, having been in custody since May 2023 and previously denied bail. The High Court examined the gruesome nature of the crime, the fact that the body was cut into pieces, and the commencement of trial. Considering the seriousness of the offences and the stage of the proceedings, the Court declined to grant bail. The bail application was dismissed and the court directed the police to arrest the remaining co‑accused.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in a murder and concealment case where the trial has already commenced
- Whether the gravity of the offences under IPC Sections 302 and 201 precludes the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 201
- high court
- Patna
- criminal procedure
- grievous homicide
- custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51222 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2023 Thana- SIGAUDI District- Patna
======================================================
Surith Yadav S/o Balli Yadav R/o Village- Karni Bigha, P.S.- Parsa Bigha,
District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pintu Kumar Patel, APP
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Sigaudi P.S.Case
No. 66 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 21.02.2015 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.29916 of 2024, which reads as under:-
Seen the office notes.
2. Defect No. 6(7) is ignored.
3. Heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned APP for the
State Sri Jharkhandy Upadhayay.
4. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Sigori P.S.Case No. 66 of
2023 registered for the offence under
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51222 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The petitioner is father-in-law
of the deceased and h e is accused of
killing the deceased. Petitioner is in
custody since 22.05.2023.
6. I have heard and considered
the submissions of the parties and also
have gone through the records of the case.
7. The dead body cut into pieces
was recovered and subsequently it was
found that it was of the deceased namely
Renu Devi. During investigation it has
come that the petitioner and other family
members had killed the deceased by
cutting her into pieces in their house.
8. The motive for killing the
deceased is that she was used to leave
house. This action of the deceased does
not grant license to the family members to
kill her by cutting her into pieces.
9. Considering the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, I am not inclined
to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly , this application for regular
bail is dismissed.
10. the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Patna is directed to see to it that
the other co-accused which includes the
husband of the deceased are arrested as
the case is of 2023 and in such a brutal
murder, the accused persons are
absconding.
11. Let a copy of this order be
communicatedto the Senior Superintendent
of Police, Patna through FAX for its
compliance forthwith.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51222 of 2025(4) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
the charge has already been framed.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
N.K/-
U
Checking your session…