Patna High Court
Bhola Yadav @ Navneet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.
Summary
Bhola Yadav was charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at the husband of an informant, resulting in the victim's death en route to the hospital. The petitioner contended that the informant was not an eye‑witness, the case stemmed from a land dispute, no witnesses had been examined, and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since August 2023. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the direct allegation of firing and noting that the bail application had previously been rejected. The court observed that charges were framed on 27‑05‑2025 and summons had been issued to nine charge‑sheeted witnesses, indicating that the investigation was still ongoing. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of the trial, the court declined to grant bail at this juncture, though it allowed a renewal of the prayer after six months if the case did not progress. Consequently, the petitioner remains in custody.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder case involving Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act at the pre‑trial stage.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- common intention
- Arms Act
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74722 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Bhola Yadav @ Navneet Kumar S/O Bali Yadav @ Bali Ram Yadav @ Ram
Bali Yadav R/O Village - Belhanti, P.S- Muffasil, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34
of the I.P.C and Sections 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner and others
attacked the husband of the informant and upon order of co-
accused, Arun Yadav, petitioner fired upon the informant’s
husband which hit on his head and the other co-accused,
Mahesh Yadav, fired which hit his stomach and, thereafter, all
the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. On
the way to hospital, the informant’s husband died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it
would appear from the perusal of the First Information Report
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74722 of 2025(4) dt.13-02-2026
2/3
that, as a matter of fact, the informant herself is not an eye
witness of the occurrence and the petitioner has been implicated
on account of previous land dispute between the parties. It has
been submitted that the death of the deceased is actually a case
of a blind murder which took place at a deserted place and,
subsequently, the name of the petitioner and other accused
persons have been taken with specific allegations also being
imputed at the petitioner. Further, the charges have been framed
in this case on 27.05.2025 but no witness has been examined till
date and the petitioner is languishing in custody since
02.08.2023 with no criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the bail
petition on the ground that there is a direct allegation of firing
on this petitioner and upon considering the same the bail
application of the petitioner was earlier rejected on 28.03.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 67237 of 2024.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the direct allegations
upon this petitioner of firing and also considering the fact that
the report with regard to the stage of the trial indicates that after
charges having been framed on 27.05.2025, the summons and
warrants have been issued on the charge sheeted witnesses who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74722 of 2025(4) dt.13-02-2026
3/3
are nine in number, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner at this stage.
7. However, if no substantial progress is made in the
case in another period of six months, the petitioner would be at
liberty to renew his prayer for bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
vashudha/-
U T
Checking your session…