Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

VAKIL YADAVversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioner in view of his confession and the material evidence against him.

Summary

Vakil Yadav was arrested in connection with the disappearance and alleged murder of Ramu Mandal, under sections 140(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that there was only suspicion and no eyewitness evidence. The prosecution, however, presented a confession by the petitioner admitting to killing and concealing the body in a corn field, and noted that a co‑accused's bail had already been denied. After hearing both sides, the Court found the confession and other material facts sufficient to refuse regular bail. The bail application was therefore rejected and the trial was directed to be expedited within a year.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused who has confessed to the murder under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
  • Whether the existence of a confession and other material evidence precludes the grant of bail.
  • Whether the denial of bail to a co‑accused influences the bail decision for the petitioner.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • confession
  • murder
  • Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
  • criminal procedure
  • trial expeditious

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75383 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 VAKIL YADAV S/o Late Bindeshwari Yadav R/o Village- Kheriya Yadav
                 Tola, P.S- Kursela, Dist- Katihar
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   11-02-2026                    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                   2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Kursaila P.S. Case no.

                   55 of 2025 registered under sections 140(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of

                   the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that he along with Ramu Mandal had gone to attend a shradh.

                   Thereafter, the said Ramu Mandal had gone with the daughter of

                   the informant to assist her in hiring an e-rickshaw. Since then

                   Ramu Mandal disappeared and is not to be found inspite of

                   search. His mobile phone is switched off.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has been falsely indicated in the case

                   in course of the investigation. Except for suspicion, there is no

                   material against him. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75383 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      The petitioner is in custody since 10.3.2025 and charge sheet

                      has been submitted in the case.

                                   5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                      for the State.

                                   6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it

                      transpires that in course of investigation the petitioner had

                      confessed his guilt of having killed Ramu Mandal and having

                      hidden his body in a corn field. It further transpires that

                      application for bail of co-accused Rahul Kumar has been

                      rejected vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. no.

                      75054 of 2025.

                                   7. In the facts of the case the Court is not inclined to

                      enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

                                   8. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for

                      the petitioner that in terms of the above mentioned order dated

                      13.11.2025, similar observation be given.

                                    9. Let the trial Court expedite the trial and conclude

                      the same at the earliest preferably within a period of one year

                      from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.


                                                  (Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.