Patna High Court

Mahendra YadavversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 19 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to bond and surety conditions.

Summary

Mahendra Yadav and Rajendra Yadav were charged under IPC sections 448, 307, 506, 34 and Arms Act section 27 for abusing, threatening an informant and firing a licensed rifle. They had previously obtained bail in 2005, which was cancelled in 2008 for misuse, and have been in custody since 20‑08‑2025. The charge‑sheet was filed on 01‑12‑2025 with nine witnesses, none of whom have appeared despite summons, indicating a delayed trial. The petitioners applied for bail, arguing the prolonged detention and lack of progress. The court, noting the long custody period and unlikely near‑term conclusion of trial, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties, subject to appearance conditions and possible cancellation for non‑appearance.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the serious nature of the offences under IPC and the Arms Act
Whether the delay in trial and non‑appearance of witnesses justify bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34, 448, 506

Subjects

bail
IPC
Arms Act
rioting
attempt to murder
criminal intimidation
common intention
trial delay
surety

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76764 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2004 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
           1.     Mahendra Yadav S/o Late Kesar Yadav Resident of Village- Mayapur, P.S.-
                  Muffasil, District- Gaya,
           2.     Rajendra Yadav S/o Late Kesar Yadav Resident of Village- Mayapur, P.S.-
                  Muffasil, District- Gaya,
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
                 The State Of Bihar Advocate General Bihar Patna
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Gajendra Kumar Singh
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Bharat Bhushan
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   19-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the

                   offence punishable under Sections 448, 307, 506, 34 of the

                   Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. Petitioners along with other accused persons are

                   said to have abused and threatened the informant and also

                   started firing with licensee rifle.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                   petitioner no. 1 was granted bail by the learned court below vide

                   order dated 16.05.2005 passed in B.P. No. 272 of 2005 while

                   petitioner no. 2 was granted bail vide order dated 10.06.2005
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76764 of 2025(5) dt.19-02-2026
                                            2/3




          passed in B.P. No. 309 of 2005(Annexure-P/2 to the

          supplementary affidavit). Further, the bail bond of the

          petitioners was cancelled in the year 2008 on ground of misuse

          of bail and now the petitioners are in custody since 20.08.2025

          and the stage of the case would show that the charges have been

          framed against the petitioners on 01.12.2025 and there are total

          9 charge-sheeted witnesses. No witness has turned up despite

          summons, as such, there is no likelihood of the conclusion of

          the trial in near future.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the

          application for bail.

                           6. Taking into consideration the facts and

          circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioners

          are now in custody since 20.08.2005 and the charges have also

          been framed, let the above named petitioners, be enlarged on

          bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

          Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is

          pending/successor court in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case

          No. 202 of 2004, subject to the conditions that the petitioners

          shall appear on each and every date till conclusion of trial and if

          the petitioners do not appear on two consecutive dates without
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76764 of 2025(5) dt.19-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       any substantial and satisfactory reason, the learned court below

                       would be at liberty to cancel their bail bonds.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…