Patna High Court
Akshay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Bail was denied because the petitioner is a named assailant in a murder case, with serious charges and prior criminal history, and the evidence in the FIR and co‑accused confessions corroborates the allegations.
Summary
The petitioner, Akshay Yadav, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Sessions Case No.208 of 2025) where the victim, the informant's brother, was shot dead. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was one of the assailants who fired at the victim, as stated in the FIR and corroborated by confessional statements of co‑accused. The petitioner argued that the confessional statement was inadmissible, that he was not an eyewitness, and that the investigation lacked direct evidence, citing bail granted to co‑accused in similar circumstances. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences (murder, attempt to murder, and illegal possession of arms), the petitioner’s extensive criminal antecedents, and the risk of tampering with witnesses. The Court examined the post‑mortem report, the FIR, and the confessional statements, finding the allegations substantiated and the petitioner’s conduct disqualifying for bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the bail application, noting that the order’s observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being named in the FIR and confessional statements of co‑accused.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused is admissible for the purpose of bail consideration.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offences preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27(3)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 3(5)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 307
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- arms act
- criminal antecedents
- confessional statement
- evidentiary admissibility
- Indian criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71039 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- UCHKAGAON District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Akshay Yadav, Son of Vinod Yadav, R/O Ujra Narayanpur, P.S.- Uchkagaon,
District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shreyanshu Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
7 03-07-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel duly
assisted by Mr. Anju Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.
Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Sessions Case No.208 of 2025 arising out of
Uchkagaon P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71039 of 2025(7) dt.03-07-2026
2/6
alleged that on 10.01.2025 his elder brother, namely, Arvind
Kumar Yadav, while going to school on his motorcycle, saw that
the named accused persons including the petitioner started
indiscriminate firing upon his brother hitting him on his chest
and abdomen upon which he fell down. It is further alleged that
the villagers came to the place of occurrence upon hearing the
sound of firing and thereafter the accused persons fled away on
two motorcycles and thereafter, the informant’s brother was
taken to the Sadar hospital in a car, where the doctor declared
him dead.
4. Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in a concocted case as from the FIR it would
appear that the informant was not an eyewitness to the
occurrence. It has further been submitted that during the course
of investigation one non-FIR named accused, namely, Abhishek
Kumar in his confessional statement before the police took the
name of present petitioner regarding his role played in the
alleged occurrence. It has next been submitted that such
confessional statement is inadmissible in evidence and cannot
be relied upon.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71039 of 2025(7) dt.03-07-2026
3/6
materials collected during the course of investigation is
insufficient to substantiate direct involvement of the accused
persons, including the present petitioner and no incriminating
article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the
petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out
towards Annexure-2, whereby co-accused persons, namely,
Mohmad Nazir Alam, Sakil Ahmad @ Sakil @ Jhuna Alam and
Niraj Singh were granted bail by this Court and submits that the
case of the petitioner stands on similar footing. It has lastly been
submitted that the investigation is complete and the police has
submitted charge-sheet on 10.04.2025 and the petitioner is
languishing in jail since 12.02.2024. Learned counsel has
though admitted the fact that the petitioner carries ten criminal
antecedents.
6. Mr. Harsh Singh, learned counsel for the informant
submits that the petitioner cannot equate his case with the other
accused persons, who have been granted bail earlier by this
Court, as the petitioner was not only named by the informant in
the FIR but also by the apprehended co-accused persons in their
confessional statement. It has further been submitted that during
investigation the active role of the petitioner has been stated by
the co-accused persons and his presence at the place of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71039 of 2025(7) dt.03-07-2026
4/6
occurrence cannot be doubted. It has next been submitted by the
learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner was among
the accused persons, who had fired upon the brother of the
informant leading to his death and looking at the long list of
criminal antecedents of similar nature, the petitioner does not
deserve to be released on bail.
7. The learned counsel for the informant has pointed
out that the petitioner has not come with clean hands before this
Court, as it would be evident from the fact that Gopalganj Town
P.S. Case No.75 of 2022, in which the present petitioner is also
an accused, which is stated in paragraph ‘3(j)’, therein Section
302 I.P.C. has been deliberately omitted. He submits that the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is in custody since more than 2 years and 4
months is also wrong, as the FIR was lodged on 10.01.2025 and
the petitioner is in fact in custody since 12.02.2025 and
therefore, it is only 1 year and 4 months of his custody.
8. The learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioner being one of the
assailants should not be released on bail specially taking into
account that he has a long list of criminal antecedents and he
would influence the witness yet to be examined.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71039 of 2025(7) dt.03-07-2026
5/6
9. Considering the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner and taking into account the postmortem
report, which shows six entry wounds and five exit wounds and
the cause of death being hemorrhage and shock due to bullet
wounds, the allegations in the FIR stands corroborated.
Moreover, this Court finds that the informant has specifically
named the petitioner among one of the main assailants and
subsequently, the apprehended accused persons in his
confessional statement has also taken the name of this petitioner.
This Court also finds that in the bail application in paragraph ‘4’
the custody of the petitioner has been stated ‘since 12.02.2024’
(after striking off 12.02.2025), instead of 12.02.2025, which
amounts to misleading the Court, however, for a case lodged in
the year 2025, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner would
have been in custody since 2024.
10. Looking at the antecedents of the petitioner and
the nature of offences alleged against him, which includes
Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as
offences under the Arms Act, 1959, as also the fact that the
petitioner is a named accused in the FIR with allegation of firing
upon the brother of the informant leading to his death, I am not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71039 of 2025(7) dt.03-07-2026
6/6
11. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
12. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.