Patna High Court
Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioners were named in the FIR with direct murder allegations and the gravity of the offence warranted denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioners applied for anticipatory bail in two criminal miscellaneous applications arising from Police Station Case No. 290 of 2024, which alleged that they participated in the murder of an informant's son. The FIR accused them of shooting the victim, whose post‑mortem report confirmed a bullet injury to the head, and of disposing of the body on a railway track. The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated, citing lack of eyewitnesses and an alleged love‑relationship motive leading to an accidental death. The prosecution contended that the petitioners were named in the FIR and that the forensic evidence established homicide. The court, noting the direct allegation, the seriousness of the offence and the severity of punishment, declined to grant anticipatory bail and dismissed the applications.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is named in the FIR and faces a direct allegation of murder.
- Whether the presence of bullet injury evidence and the gravity of the offence preclude anticipatory bail.
- Whether the absence of eyewitness testimony affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 238, 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- FIR
- bullet injury
- post‑mortem
- gravity of offence
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90549 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2024 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Anil Kumar S/O Late Shyam Babu Yadav Resident Of Village- Bharthua, P.s.-
Kako, Bhelawar O.P., Dist.- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5280 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2024 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Yadav Son of Vinod Yadav Resident of Village -
Bharthua, P.S. - Kako, Bhelwar O.P., Dist. - Jehanabad.
2. Shankar Dayal @ Shankar Dayal Yadav Son of Vinod Yadav Resident Of
Village - Bharthua, P.S. - Kako, Bhelwar O.P., Dist. - Jehanabad.
3. Sunil Kumar Son of Late Shyambabu Yadav Resident Of Village - Bharthua,
P.S. - Kako, Bhelwar O.P., Dist. - Jehanabad.
4. Madhir Kumar S/o Late Jagjeevan Yadav R/o Village- Ghorhar (Ghorghat)
Salarpur, P.S- Kako, Dist- Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 90549 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5280 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
5 29-04-2026 1. Both these applications arise out of Kako (Bhelwar)
Police Station Case No. 290 of 2024, with the consent of
the parties, both these applications are heard together.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90549 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, in both the
cases.
3. These applications, for grant of anticipatory bail, arise out
of Kako (Bhelwar) Police Station Case No. 290 of 2024,
dated 14.10.2024, disclosing offences punishable under
Sections 103(1)/238/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
4. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 10.12.2024, at about 10 PM, the co-accused and
co-villagers of the informant, namely, Bhupendra Kumar
and Madan Kumar came to the house of the informant
and took the informant’s son, who knows the work of
electrician, with them. When the informant’s son did not
come back after a long time, the informant called him on
his mobile, but his mobile could not be connected. Then,
the informant went in search of his son, but he could not
be traced, co-accused Bhupendra Kumar and Madan
Kumar were also not present in their house. It has further
been alleged that the petitioners, along with others, killed
the informant’s son by shooting him and threw his dead
body on the railway track.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90549 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated
in this false case. He further submits that the informant
has implicated these petitioners merely on suspicion
merely because they are the relatives of Bhupendra
Kumar and Madan Kumar. There is no eye-witness to the
present occurrence. He further submits that the fact of the
matter is that there was love relationship between the son
of the informant (deceased) and co-villager Anisha
Kumari, who is the daughter of the neighbour of the
informant, Vijay Prasad and in the night, the deceased
came to meet her when the ladies members saw them and
the deceased jumped from the roof and fled away. He
further submits that the deceased met with a railway
accident and died.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and
submits that the petitioner is named in the First
Information Report itself and the doctor has found bullet
injury in the head of the deceased and to give it a case of
accident, the accused persons have kept the dead body of
the deceased on a railway track.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90549 of 2025(5) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
7. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that
the petitioners are named in the First Information Report,
there is direct allegation against the petitioners that they
killed the deceased, from the post mortem report, it is
evident that bullet injury has been found in the head of
the deceased, the gravity of the offence and severity of the
punishment thereof, I am not inclined to grant the
petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. These applications are, accordingly, dismissed
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.