Patna High Court

Lalu YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 1 April 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA

Holding

The court held that regular bail could not be granted as the petitioner was directly implicated in serious offences and had prior convictions, and the prosecution's case was deemed credible.

Summary

The petitioner, Lalu Yadav, was in custody for offences under several sections of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleged to have fired at an informant and looted valuables. He claimed false implication and sought regular bail, arguing the FIR was concoced. The State opposed bail, highlighting direct allegations of firing, multiple injuries to the victim, and the petitioner's four prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the FIR, case diary, and supporting witness statements, finding sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner. Considering the seriousness of the charges and the petitioner’s criminal history, the court declined to grant regular bail. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite serious charges under the BNS and Arms Act.
Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground to deny bail.
Whether the petitioner's claim of false implication affects the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
BNS — s. 109(1), 303(2), 329(3), 329(4), 3(5), 351(3)

Subjects

bail
criminal procedure
Arms Act
false implication
prior convictions
serious offences

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7169 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2025 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Lalu Yadav, aged about 30 years, (Male), Son of Vaiju Yadav, Resident of
                 Village- Bahuarba, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State          :         Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP
                 For the Opposite Party :         Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Uttam Sahu, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
                 MALVIYA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   01-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner is in custody in a case registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 329(3), 109(1), 351(3),

                   329(4), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms

                   Act.

                                 3. Allegation against the petitioner and other co-

                   accused persons is to have fired with a gun upon the informant

                   with intention to kill him and thereafter the informant fell down

                   and also entered in the house of the informant and looted

                   Rs.50,000/- and ornaments worth Rs.2 lacs and fled away from

                   the place of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7169 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next

          submits that no occurrence as alleged in the FIR and entire

          prosecution version is fully concocted and false story. Petitioner

          is in custody since 14.09.2025 and he has got four criminal

          antecedents as stated in the petition.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail and submits that there is direct allegation of firing upon the

          informant against the petitioner and he has got four criminal

          antecedents as stated in the petition.

                       6. On perusal of the first information report, case

          diary and impugned order dated 03.01.2026, it appears that the

          petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct allegation to

          use fire arms against Shambhu Yadav, who sustained multiple

          bleeding lacerated wound over right shoulder, left side of chest,

          left arm, left forearm and right wrist joint each having size ½ cm

          x ½ cm x muscle deep with margin black and thereafter,

          informant referred to DMCH, Darbhanga for further treatment

          and also appears that petitioner is involved in multiple cases of

          serious nature and several witnesses have also supported the

          case of the prosecution, so I am not inclined to grant regular bail

          to the petitioner.
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7169 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
                                                      3/3




                                 7. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the

                    petitioner is hereby rejected.



                                         (Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Brajesh Kumar/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…