Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The bail application was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Yadav, was charged with murder under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He applied for bail, arguing that the FIR originally named six unknown persons and that he was implicated only through a confessional statement made in an unrelated case, with no eye‑witnesses. The State opposed bail, relying on call‑detail records showing the petitioner’s telephone conversations with co‑accused Vishwakarma Gond on the date of the crime and from a tower near the crime scene, and noting that bail for a similarly situated co‑accused had already been denied. The court examined the investigative material, the CDR evidence, and the earlier denial of bail to the co‑accused. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant release, the court rejected the bail petition.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case where the primary evidence is a confessional statement and call‑detail records linking him to the crime scene.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- call detail records
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76284 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2024 Thana- GUTHANI District- Siwan
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Yadav @ Rahul Yadav Son of Vishwanath Yadav Resident Of
Village -Aranda Tola M H Nagar, Ps -M. H. Nagar, Dist -Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 103, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Petitioner along with other accused persons are said
to have committed murder of the son of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
First Information Report was lodged against six unknown
miscreants and the name of the petitioner transpired during the
course of investigation after having confessed his guilt in a
different case. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness
to the case and he has been made an accused only on the basis
of own confessional statement. The petitioner is in custody since
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76284 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/2
18.02.2025 and there has been no progress in the case.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have opposed the application for bail on the
ground that paragraph 58 of the case diary discloses telephonic
conversations containing the CDR which discloses several
telephonic conversations of the petitioner with the other accused
Vishwakarma Gond on the date of occurrence and the tower
location is also shown to be near the place of occurrence. It has
been further submitted that the case of co-accused Vishwakarma
Gond has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
54892 of 2025.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the materials collected
during the course of investigation coupled with the fact that the
prayer for bail of similarly situated co-accused has already been
rejected, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected in connection
Guthani P.S. Case No. 322 of 2024.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…