Patna High Court
Sunny Deval yadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The anticipatory bail petition was rejected as the petitioner was an absconder and the investigation under Section 83 CrPC had concluded.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunny Deval Yadav, was named in an FIR for murder, culpable homicide, conspiracy and abetment (IPC §§302, 201, 120(B), 34) and sought anticipatory bail. He argued that he has a clean antecedent, that co‑accused had been granted bail, and that the FIR only alleged he called the victim’s grandson to the crime scene. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner was the sole accused for the crucial act, that he has been absconding for two and a half years, and that the investigation under CrPC §83 had already concluded, citing the Supreme Court decision in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024). The Court held that the petitioner’s absconding status and the completion of the §83 inquiry rendered the anticipatory bail petition untenable. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accused is absconding and the investigation under CrPC Section 83 has been completed.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar bars anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR are sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- absconding
- murder
- IPC
- CrPC Section 83
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70660 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-515 Year-2022 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Sunny Deval yadav son of Ganesh Ray @ Ganesh Yadav Resident Of Vill-
Agarwa Ps- Jitna Dist -East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kr. Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Ghorasahan
P.S. Case No. 515 of 2022 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 302,201,120(B),34 of IPC.
3. As per FIR, petitioner alongwith other named
co-accused persons committed murder of grandson of
informant by inflicting knife injuries.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that the maximum allegation
as per FIR which is available against this petitioner is to
call grandson of the informant from his home. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70660 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
submitted that other co-accused persons namely, Hiralal
Rai and Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Rai who found in gathering
near to dead body were granted anticipatory bail by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court through Cr. Misc.
No. 30596 of 2025 dated 21.05.2025. It is submitted
that police submitted disclosure report qua co-accused
namely, Hiralal Rai, Vijay Kumar, Pradeep Kumar and
Jitendra Kumar but learned Jurisdictional Magistrate
taking different view took cognizance against them. It is
submitted that in view of aforesaid petitioner being a man
of clean antecedent deserves anticipatory bail as no
purpose of justice shall be served by sending this
petitioner behind bar.
5. Learned APP while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that none of the other named co-accused
persons except this petitioner was involved in calling
grandson of informant from his home. It is submitted that
FIR specifically alleged that this petitioner only called the
grandson of the informant from his home. It is pointed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70660 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
out that moreover, proceedings under Section 83 of
Cr.P.C. already completed against this petitioner, who is
absconding since lodging of FIR since last two and half
years. In connection of aforesaid learned APP drawn
attention towards para no. 116 of case diary. The prayer
of anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable in view of
legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Srikant Upadhyay and Others Vs. State of
Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 282.
6. In view of aforesaid as petitioner appears
absconder as process under Section 83 of Cr.P.C.
concluded against him, coupled with the fact that he
appears absconder for last two and half years,
accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this
petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Sudha/-
U T
Checking your session…