Patna High Court
Bindul Yadav @ Binod Yadav @ BinodversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Bindul Yadav, was implicated in a case concerning the disappearance and presumed murder of a hospital patient’s son, alleged under IPC sections 363, 364, 365, 120(B), 302 and 201/34. The prosecution’s case rests on the presence of the accused near the hospital and a prior enmity, while the petitioner’s name entered the FIR only through a confessional statement of a co‑accused who had already been acquitted. The petitioner argued that he is innocent, that the other accused have been acquitted, and that his inclusion is based solely on that unreliable confession. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after weighing the circumstances and the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, granted bail subject to stringent conditions, including sureties, regular reporting, and non‑interference with evidence or witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being implicated solely through a confessional statement of an acquitted co‑accused.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under sections 363, 364, 365, 120(B), 302 and 201/34 precludes the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34, 363, 364, 365
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- kidnapping
- murder
- confessional statement
- acquittal
- Criminal Procedure Code
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6901 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-464 Year-2023 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Bindul Yadav @ Binod Yadav @ Binod S/O Sugdeo Yadav R/O Village-
Dahariya, Ward No. 09, P.S- Chhatapur, Distt.- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Murari Narain Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Chhatapur P. S. Case No. 464 of 2023, dated 24-12-2023
instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364,
365, 120(B), 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that after the
surgery of the informant’s wife at Sandeep Memorial Hospital,
his son Nitish Kumar went missing on 20-12-2023 while
returning home from the hospital. His mobile phone was
unreachable and later found to be switched off. On the next
morning, victim’s motorcycle was found parked near a tea stall
close to the hospital, but he was not found anywhere. On this
basis the informant claims that accused Dinesh Yadav along
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6901 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
with four unknown persons, was seen roaming around near the
hospital on the same day. He further states that due to previous
enmity, the said accused had earlier threatened to kidnap and kill
his son. On the basis of these allegations, the informant suspects
that the accused persons are responsible for the disappearance of
his son. Although the petitioner was not named in the FIR, his
name came up later during the investigation as one of the
accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that the FIR was initially
lodged against only one accused, namely Dinesh Yadav. During
the course of investigation, the wife of the deceased raised
suspicion against three persons, namely Ramesh Kumar Yadav
@ Fauji, Sandhir Yadav and Bhupendra Yadav in connection
with the alleged occurrence. All the aforesaid three accused
persons have already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court
vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 291 of 2024. The petitioner has been implicated in the
present case only on the basis of the confessional statement of
co-accused Ramesh Kumar Yadav @ Fauji, who himself has
already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. On the basis
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6901 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
of the said confessional statement alone, the petitioner has been
arrayed as an accused in the instant case. Further submission is
that another co-accused, namely Md. Salim, has already been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide
order dated 13.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45154 of 2025
(Annexure-2). Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 10.04.2025. Although seven criminal
cases were shown to be pending against him, the petitioner has
already been acquitted and discharged in all such cases and
stands released from the liability of the respective bail bonds.
5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge- VIII, Supaul/ In charge successor Court, in
connection with Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 464 of 2023, subject
to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall co-
operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and
every date fixed by the Court and on his absence on two
consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6901 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
be cancelled by the court below, (ii) that one of the bailors will
be his own blood relation, preferably father, mother, brother,
sister and or his wife, (iii) that the bailor shall also state on
affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner
is made accused in any other case of similar nature after his
release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be
at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on
ground of misuse (iv) that if the petitioner tampers with the
evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at
liberty to move for cancellation of bail and (v) that the petitioner
will appear before the SHO of concerned PS in the first week of
each month till the framing of charge in this case.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U T
Checking your session…