Patna High Court
Suli YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court refused to grant regular bail to the petitioner, ordering the trial to be expedited.
Summary
The petitioner, Suli Yadav, was charged under sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 341, 323, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly causing the deaths of the husband and father‑in‑law of an informant in a 2013 incident. The petition sought regular bail, arguing that the post‑mortem report did not show a firearm injury on one victim and that the key eyewitnesses were not present, while noting that a co‑accused had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner had been at large for a long period, faced serious double‑murder charges, had four prior criminal convictions, and that the trial was already underway with three prosecution witnesses examined. The Court considered the seriousness of the offences, the progress of the trial, and the petitioner’s antecedents, and declined to grant regular bail. Instead, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and complete the trial within six months, allowing the petitioner to renew his bail application thereafter.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail disposition for a petitioner charged with double murder and related offences, considering the seriousness of the charges, trial progress, and prior criminal antecedents?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 325, 341
Subjects
- bail
- double murder
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- judicial custody
- criminal antecedents
- trial expedite
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69670 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2013 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
Suli Yadav S/O Siyasharan Yadav Resident of Village- Dumriya, P.S.- Barh,
District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
For the Informant : Md. Anwar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
6 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the
petitioner in connection with Barh P.S. Case no.10 of 2013
registered under sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 341, 323, 325 of
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that seven named accused
persons including the petitioner herein caused injury to the
husband and father-in-law of the informant through lathi and
sticks. There is specific allegation that the firing opened by
accused Ashok Yadav caused injury upon the head of the father-
in-law of the informant and the fire opened by the accused Suli
Yadav caused injury to the husband of the informant, as a result
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69670 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
of which both succumbed to their injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against the petitioner that he fired upon the
informant’s husband, is not corroborated by the post-mortem
report, as no firearm injury has been found on the head of the
deceased, Nunulal Yadav. It is further submitted that the
witnesses are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence and co-
accused Ashok Yadav, against whom there was a specific
allegation of firing at the head of the deceased, has already been
granted the privilege of regular bail vide order dated 29.08.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 31083 of 2025. The petitioner is in
judicial custody since 09.08.2024 and undertakes to cooperate in
the trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State as also learned counsel for the informant on
the ground that the petitioner has absconded for a long time as
the case being of the year 2013 and that he has been in custody
only since 09.08.2024. It is further submitted that the case
relates to a double murder with specific allegation against the
petitioner of having fired upon the head of the informant’s
husband and that after framing of charge on 19.03.2025, the trial
has progressed and three prosecution witnesses have already
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69670 of 2025(6) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
been examined. It is also submitted that the petitioner has four
criminal antecedents.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts of the
case and also considering that trial is in progress and three
prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the
present case is of the year 2013, the Court is not inclined to
grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, learned
trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same
preferably within a period of six months without giving
unnecessary adjournment, failing which the petitioner would be
at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…