Patna High Court

Dayanand YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 9 January 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Dayanand Yadav, arrested on 12 February 2021 in connection with a FIR dated 19 July 2020, sought bail for offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 302 and Arms Act section 27. His bail applications had been rejected three times earlier. Counsel argued that he has a clean antecedent and the trial is still pending, while the State and the informant opposed bail, highlighting the serious nature of the charges and the petitioner’s alleged firing that caused a death. The trial court had scheduled the case for argument and noted that the petitioner’s counsel had not appeared before it. Considering the seriousness of the offences, the pending trial, and the non‑appearance of counsel, the High Court refused the bail prayer.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences and prolonged pre‑trial detention
Whether the non‑appearance of the petitioner’s counsel before the trial court justifies denial of bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 341

Subjects

bail
pre‑trial detention
IPC
Arms Act
serious offences
non‑appearance of counsel
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75161 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2020 Thana- RAHUI District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Dayanand Yadav S/o Ram Jatan Yadav R/o Village- Saidalli, P.S.- Rahui,
                 District- Nalanda (Bihar)                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate
                                          :        Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
                                          :        Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate
                                          :        Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
                 For the Informant        :        Mr. Jaishankar Prasad, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   09-01-2026                    Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel for

                   the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State

                   and Mr. Jaishankar Prasad, learned counsel for the Informant.

                                     2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   12.02.2021, in connection with Rahui P.S. Case No. 239 of 2020,

                   FIR dated 19.07.2020 registered for the offence under Sections

                   147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and

                   Section 27 of Arms Act.

                                     3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was

                   rejected thrice vide order dated 07.04.2022, 07.12.2022,

                   11.07.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 46342 of 2021, Cr. Misc. No. 63350

                   of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No. 46643 of 2025.

                                     4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

                   submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75161 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
                                                        2/2




                      been implicated in this case. He further submits that the trial is not

                      concluded yet and the petitioner is rotting in judicial custody since

                      12.02.2021.

                                      5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as

                      learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently

                      opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

                                      6. Learned counsel for the Informant submits that

                      from bare perusal of last page of the impugned order it appears

                      that on last four occasions, learned counsel for the petitioner did

                      not appear in the trial court and the case is fixed for argument and

                      apart from that it appears from the FIR that there is direct and

                      specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the

                      victim and the victim died during treatment.

                                      6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                      case as well as the fact that the matter is fixed for argument and

                      learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the learned

                      trial court, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in

                      connection with Rahui P.S. Case No. 239 of 2020 pending in the

                      Court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nalanda at Biharshariff.

                                              7. Prayer is refused.



                                             (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…