Patna High Court
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Baba @ Amit Kumar @ Amit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail is granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs. 50,000, two sureties, and conditions for cancellation on trial delay or non‑appearance.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Yadav, was charged under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 34 (common intention) and Section 27 of the Arms Act for alleged firing at an injured person. He has ten prior criminal cases and his earlier bail application was rejected. The petitioner argued that a co-accused, Ajit Kumar, in a similar case was eventually granted bail after charge framing, and that the FIR specifically names another person, Dheeraj, as the shooter. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s antecedents. The Court, considering the precedent and the fact that the petitioner is not directly alleged to have fired, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, one being his father, and imposed conditions for cancellation if he delays the trial or fails to appear.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner charged with attempt to murder, common intention, and unlawful possession of arms despite multiple prior criminal cases.
- Whether the precedent of bail granted to a similarly situated co-accused (Ajit Kumar) is applicable.
- Whether the petitioner is directly implicated in the alleged firing under the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34
Subjects
- bail
- IPC Section 307
- IPC Section 34
- Arms Act Section 27
- antecedent criminal cases
- trial delay
- surety
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66718 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2023 Thana- PIRO District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Baba @ Amit Kumar @ Amit Yadav S/o Sanjay Yadav
@ Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh R/o Village- Laharabad, P.S.- Piro,
District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashank Shekhar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satyendra Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this
is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail. It is next
submitted that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court
seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 51652 of 2024 and
the same came to be rejected by an order dated 25-10-2024
taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has antecedent
of 10 criminal cases.
4. It is next submitted that similarly situated co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66718 of 2025(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
accused Ajit Kumar had also approached this Court seeking
regular bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 35540 of 2024 and the same
came to be rejected by an order dated 20-9-2024 with liberty to
the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of
charge. It is further submitted that Ajit Kumar also had
antecedent of eight cases. It is also submitted that charges
against Ajit Kumar was framed by an order dated 14-5-2025, as
such he again moved this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr
Misc No. 44997 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an
order dated 4-7-2025 with certain conditions. It is next
submitted that against the petitioner also charges have been
framed by order dated 14-5-2025 and the case of the petitioner,
if not akin, is similar to the case of Ajit Kumar. It is further
submitted that allegation is of firing at the injured, but then from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that specific allegation of firing is against Dheeraj and petitioner
is not alleged to have fired.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and also taking into consideration the
fact that charges against the petitioner have been framed by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66718 of 2025(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
order dated 14-5-2025, let the petitioner above named be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Piro P.S. Case No.
440 of 2023.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father, Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh.
8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release
is trying to delay the trial or is not appearing in the trial on two
consecutive dates without any plausible explanation, in both the
events, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…