Patna High Court
Amar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court rejected the petitioner's prayer for regular bail, holding that the direct allegation of murder and the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Amar Yadav, sought regular bail in a case (Gogri P.S. Case No. 81 of 2023) alleging his involvement in the murder of the informant's husband under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that Yadav fired at the deceased's chest, causing death, while the petitioner argued that the post‑mortem showed only an exit wound and no entry wound, questioning the culpability. The trial court had only framed charges as of January 2026, and the case was scheduled for the prosecution’s evidence stage. The High Court, after hearing counsel, noted the direct allegation against the petitioner and the seriousness of the offences, and therefore declined to grant bail at this stage. The court directed that the petitioner could renew his bail application after six months and must cooperate with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused charged with murder and illegal possession of arms under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act
- Whether the presence of a direct allegation and seriousness of the offence preclude bail at the present stage
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- Arms Act 27
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73410 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2023 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Amar Yadav Son of Late Muso Yadav R/o vill.- Shishwa, P.S.- Gogri, Distt.-
Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 81 of 2023 instituted for
the offence under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act which was earlier rejected four
times.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the the petitioner
along with other co-accused persons fired upon the husband of
the informant due to which he died. There is specific allegation
against the petitioner that he has fired at the chest of the
deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the postmortem report, it will transpire that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73410 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
there is only one exit wound on the chest. There is no entry
wound on the chest. He has further submitted that petitioner is
in custody since 25.03.2023 and till today, only charge has been
framed.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned
counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular
bail. Learned counsel has submitted that as the petitioner has
preferred a quashing, the trial could not proceed and ultimately,
it was withdrawn by the petitioner and the charges were framed
in January, 2026.
6. From the report of learned trial court, it also
transpires that the case is fixed for evidence of prosecution.
7. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted
that if the petitioner will cooperate in trial, the trial will be
concluded in six months.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against
this petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands
rejected.
9. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73410 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
10. Petitioner is further directed to cooperate in trial
and not to take flimsy ground for the absence in the trial court.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…