Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Pappu Kumar @ Pappu YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the application untenable.

Summary

The petitioner, Pappu Kumar, was implicated in a 2016 murder case (No.284) under sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was not named in the FIR and was only alleged to have fed the accused after the killing. The petitioner had been in custody since 18 October 2025 after allegedly absconding for nine years. He applied for regular bail, undertaking to comply with any conditions. The court, considering the seriousness of the charges, the material gathered during investigation, and the petitioner’s long period of abscondence, rejected the bail application but allowed him to renew the prayer after six months or upon framing of charge.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite alleged involvement in a murder and a nine‑year abscondence
  • Whether the material on record justifies denial of bail under the circumstances

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • regular bail
  • murder
  • IPC 302
  • IPC 34
  • Arms Act 27
  • abscondence
  • Patna High Court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6176 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2016 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Yadav Son of Damodar Yadav @ Damodar Singh
                 Resident of Village - Mahmoodpur, Balwal, P.S.- Kalyanbigha, District -
                 Nalanda (Bihar).
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   04-02-2026                       1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                    2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case

                   no.284 of 2016 registered under section 302 and 34 of the

                   Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                    3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons

                   are said to have come variously armed and of having shot

                   Mukhiyaji leading to his death.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is not named in the FIR. He was falsely implicated in

                   the case in course of investigation. Referring to the material that

                   has transpired in course of investigation as has been mentioned

                   in the order of the learned Court below, it is submitted that the

                   only material against the petitioner is that after the accused

                   persons had given effect to the occurrence, the petitioner had
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6176 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      assisted them by feeding them at his place of residence. It is

                      submitted that no overt act has been alleged against this

                      petitioner who could not move the Court for bail on earlier

                      occasion as he was not aware about the pendency of the case.

                      The petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2025 and undertakes to

                      abide by any condition which may be laid by this Court for his

                      release on bail.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.

                      for the State who submits that in a case registered in November,

                      2016, the petitioner could be taken into custody only in October,

                      2025 after having absconded for nearly nine years.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material

                      that has transpired in course of investigation and in view of the

                      fact that the petitioner absconded for almost 9 years till he was

                      taken into custody on 18.10.2025, the Court is not inclined to

                      enlarge the petitioner on bail land the application is rejected.

                                   7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his

                      prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge,

                      whichever is later.


                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U      T


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.