Patna High Court

Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar Yadav @ Guddu Kr. YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 10 April 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court denied bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Summary

Guddu Yadav was charged under Sections 302, 376 and 201 of the IPC for murder, rape and causing disappearance of evidence. He sought regular bail after an earlier bail application was rejected with a liberty to renew after six months. The trial court had recorded all prosecution evidence and the accused’s statement, and the case was awaiting defence evidence. The petitioner claimed the informant’s testimony was weak and highlighted a confessional statement admitting the crime, but the trial was at its final stage. The High Court, considering the seriousness of the offences and the confession, refused bail and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months, allowing a fresh bail application thereafter.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder, rape and evidence tampering when a confessional statement exists and the trial is near completion.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 302, 376

Subjects

bail
regular bail
IPC
murder
rape
evidence tampering
confessional statement
trial delay

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5282 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar Yadav @ Guddu Kr. Yadav S/o Dayanand
                 Yadav @ Daya Nand Yadav R/O Village - Tola Sipaya, P.S- Vishambharpur
                 (Bishambharpur), Ditrict- Gopalganj


                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Lokesh Kumar Singh, APP
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   10-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 376

                   and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected vide order

                   dated 22.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 73036 of 2024 with a

                   liberty to renew the prayer for bail after six months, if the trial

                   is not concluded.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5282 of 2026(4) dt.10-04-2026
                                            2/3




          that a report has been called for from the learned Trial Court,

          and from the perusal of the said report, it appears that all the

          prosecution evidence has already been recorded and the

          statement of the accused has also been recorded. At present, the

          case is pending for defence evidence.

                       5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a

          supplementary affidavit annexing the depositions of the

          witnesses. From the perusal of the evidence of the informant, it

          transpires that he has named the petitioner only on the basis that

          the marriage of the deceased was fixed with him and that he had

          given a mobile phone to her. During the course of investigation,

          the petitioner is stated to have made a confessional statement

          admitting that he was carrying a knife, had called the deceased

          to meet him, and had cut her throat with the said knife, which

          was subsequently recovered on his disclosure. Moreover, the

          trial is at its fag end.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

          I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage

          which is accordingly rejected.

                       7. The learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the

          trial within a period of three months. The petitioner shall be at

          liberty to renew his prayer for bail after three months, if the trial
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5282 of 2026(4) dt.10-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      is not concluded within the said period.



                                             (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…