Patna High Court
Dindayal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
The court denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dindayal Yadav, was arrested in connection with the shooting of an informant's son and charged under Sections 109 and 61(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, Sections 307 and 120B of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, no incriminating articles were found on him, and that the case against him was based merely on suspicion. The prosecution, however, relied on CCTV footage showing the shooting, the recovery of the motorcycle used in the incident from the petitioner’s possession, and a confessional statement in which he admitted involvement in the conspiracy. The trial court had already framed charges, and the investigation was ongoing. The High Court, after considering the evidence and submissions, declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may re‑apply after completing one year of custody.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the existence of CCTV evidence, recovery of the alleged weapon vehicle, and a confessional statement.
- Whether the nature of the offences (attempted murder, conspiracy, and illegal arms possession) warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109, 61(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- attempted murder
- conspiracy
- arms act
- CCTV evidence
- confessional statement
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73607 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2025 Thana- MITHANPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Dindayal Yadav, age-29 years, Gender-Male, Son of Late Shiv Nandan Yadav
@ Late Shiv Nand Yadav, Resident of Village- Bihrauna, Police Station-
Baheri, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Sessions Trial No. 790 of 2025 arising out of Mithanpura P.S.
Case No. 108 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable
under Sections 109 and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections
307, 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, two unknown
criminals came and shot the son of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence and has
falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is
not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating articles has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73607 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner
and he has been surfaced in this only on the basis of mere
suspicion. He further submits that during investigation the
investigating officer observed the CCTV footage and came to
the conclusion that the son of the informant was shot. He next
submits that the petitioner is neither put on Test Identification
Parade nor there is any recovery of any incriminating articles.
Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the
petition is in custody since 13.05.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner is a professional criminal and does
not deserve bail.
6.From perusal of the FIR, case diary and also
perused the impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the
learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, it appears
that allegation against this petitioner is specific that he has fired
on the son of the informant, which has proved by the CCTV
footage. The motorcycle used in the occurrence was found and it
belongs to the petitioner namely Dindayal Yadav. From perusal
of the case diary at paragraph no. 11, this motorcycle was
recovered from the possession of the petitioner when the police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73607 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
raided the house and arrested him. The petitioner has also
admitted his involvement in the conspiracy in his confessional
statement which led the police to four other criminals who had
come on Black Scorpio Vehicle No. UP13CK/5058, which was
further verified from CCTV footage as well. Charge sheet has
already been submitted against the petitioner and further the
investigation is going on, so considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel
for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby
rejected.
8. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before
the trial Court after completion of one year of custody.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
U T
Checking your session…