Patna High Court
Umesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case registered in 1999 under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging murder during a dacoity. He claimed innocence, stating that three examined witnesses did not support the prosecution and that he had been in custody since February 14, 2025. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and that the petitioner had absconded before surrendering. The Court examined the record, noted the petitioner’s status as an absconder, and relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in X vs State of Rajasthan (2024) which discourages granting bail in such circumstances. Consequently, the Court rejected the regular bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused charged under Section 396 IPC for murder in the course of dacoity
- Whether the petitioner’s status as an absconder precludes the grant of bail
- Applicability of the Supreme Court precedent X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr (2024) to the present bail application
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 396
Subjects
- regular bail
- dacoity
- Section 396 IPC
- absconder
- bail denial
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74282 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-1999 Thana- KHIJARSARAI District- Gaya
======================================================
Umesh Yadav S/o Ramlagan Yadav R/O Village- Nadra, P.S.- Khizersarai,
District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Soni Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 24-03-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 70 of 1999 registered for the offence
under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is
accused of committing murder in the course of a dacoity.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence.
Petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2025. He further submits
that three witnesses have been examined and they have not
supported the prosecution case.
5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes
the bail application and submits that the allegations against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74282 of 2025(6) dt.24-03-2026
2/2
petitioner are serious and grave in nature.
6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and
have gone through the records of the case. Materials have come
during the investigation to connect the petitioner with the crime.
The case is of the year 1999 and the petitioner has surrendered
on 14.02.2025. The petitioner is an absconder. The trial
witnesses are being examined.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an
absconder and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of X vs State of Rajasthan & Anr,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, this Court is not inclined to grant
regular bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U
Checking your session…