Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Yugeshwar Yadav @ Nepali @ Nepali JeeversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Yugeshwar Yadav, sought bail in a criminal case (Rampur PS Case No. 55 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 386, 387, 353, 414, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13, 18, 19, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was implicated through a self‑incriminating statement of co‑accused Vimal Yadav and that he is alleged to be a Naxal with eight other pending cases. The petitioner argued that the charge had been framed and that the trial had commenced, seeking relief on bail. The Court, recalling its earlier order dated 18‑09‑2024 which dismissed the bail application, held that the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the Court refused to review its earlier order and dismissed the second bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving serious IPC and UAPA offences.
  • Whether the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents and the commencement of trial justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • UAPA
  • IPC
  • Naxal
  • criminal procedure
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56972 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2024 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Yugeshwar Yadav @ Nepali @ Nepali Jee S/o Rakshya Yadav R/o Village-
                 Bodhisthan, P.S.- Amas, District- Gaya

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   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 Rampur P.S.Case

                   No. 55 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under

                   Sections 387, 353, 414,120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and

                   section 13, (18),(19), (20) of the U.A.P.A Act.

                                3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has

                   been rejected vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.

                   No.38478 of 2024 which reads as under:-

                                                           “ Heard learned counsel for
                                              the petitioner and learned APP for the
                                              State.
                                                        2. The petitioner seeks bail in
                                              connection with Rampur P.S.Case No.55
                                              of 2024 registered for the offence under
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56972 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
                                                        2/3




                                                 sections 386, 387, 353, 414, 120B and
                                                 sections 13,18,19,20 of the UAPA Act.
                                                            3. As per the prosecution case,
                                                 one Vimal Yadav is said to have been
                                                 caught when he was delilvering the letter
                                                 for demand of extortion of money of Rs. 7
                                                 lakhs to the informant.
                                                            4. The name of the petitioner has
                                                 come during investigation and also in the
                                                 self inclupatory statement of the other co-
                                                 accused Vimal Yadav.
                                                            5. The petitioner is also accused
                                                 in eight more cases and he appears to be
                                                 a Naxal of that area.
                                                            6. Considering the facts and the
                                                 antecedents of the petitioner this Court is
                                                 not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
                                                            7. Accordingly, this application
                                                 is dismissed.
                                                            8. The court below is directed to
                                                 expedite the trial of the petitioner and
                                                 conclude the same at the earliest.”

                                        4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                      the charge has 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       T
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56972 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
                                            3/3


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.