Patna High Court
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Yadav @ Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to a cash bond and conditions under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Yadav, was arrested in connection with a murder case (Sections 103 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act) after a FIR alleged that he and others opened fire on the informant's father, causing his death. The informant, who is the petitioner's son, later gave a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. stating that the petitioner was only a conspirator and that an unknown person fired the fatal shot; the informant's mother also failed to identify the shooter. The petitioner, who has been in custody since 20‑11‑2024, sought bail, arguing that the FIR allegation against him is doubtful and that the investigation is complete, leaving no risk of evidence tampering. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner was a principal conspirator. The Court, noting the prima facie evidence of conspiracy but also the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the actual shooting, and considering the length of custody and completed investigation, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. The order also imposed obligations to cooperate with the trial and appear physically.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder and arms offences when the FIR does not name him but statements under Section 161 suggest he was only a conspirator.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial custody and completion of investigation justify granting bail.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 480(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are applicable in this case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103, 480(3), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- arms act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 161
- Section 480(3)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Patna High Court
- Madhubani
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76873 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2024 Thana- SAHARGHAT District- Madhubani
======================================================
Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Yadav @ Amit Kumar, S/o Chandeshwar Yadav,
R/o village - Kerba, P.S - Saharghat, District- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Saharghat P.S. Case No. 56 of 2024 (S.T. No.130 of 2025)
registered for the offences under Sections 103 and 61(2) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and is in
custody since 20.11.2024.
4. As per FIR, petitioner along with four unknown
persons and one Santosh Kumar came to the house of
informant and opened fire upon father of the informant due to
which he died on spot.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76873 of 2025(2) dt.06-02-2026
2/4
petitioner submitted that informant, who is none but the son
of this petitioner claimed through FIR being an eye-witness of
the occurrence, where specific allegation against this
petitioner was raised as to shot bullet on the chest of his
father leading to his death, but interestingly during the course
of investigation, he recorded his statement under Section 161
of the Cr.P.C., which is available in para no. 13 of the case
diary, where he categorically stated that petitioner was only
conspirator, and one unknown person fired upon his father.
He failed to disclose the name of person, who caused fatal
firearm injury to his father. It is also stated by him that her
mother may disclose the name of real assailant. It is also
pointed out that on the same very day, statement of mother
of informant namely, Asha Devi was recorded, which is
available in para no. 15 of the case diary, where she also
failed to disclose the name of real assailants who caused fatal
firearm injury upon deceased i.e. father of the informant. It is
pointed out that in view of these statements, the allegation as
raised through FIR against petitioner appears doubtful. While
concluding the argument, it is submitted that petitioner found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76873 of 2025(2) dt.06-02-2026
3/4
involved in four more criminal cases, where he is on bail and
moreover, investigation of this case has already completed,
and as such, there is no chance of tampering with the
evidence.
6. Learned APP for the State while opposing the
prayer for bail could not disputed aforesaid factual
submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner, as mentioned aforesaid. However, he submitted
that petitioner was one of the main conspirator behind the
occurrence.
7. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact as petitioner prima-facie appears one of
the conspirator, where allegation as raised against him to
cause fatal firearm injury on chest of the deceased appears
doubtful in view of statement of informant as recorded under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. as discussed aforesaid, coupled
with the fact as petitioner remains in custody since
20.11.2024, accordingly, above named petitioner is directed
to be released on bail in connection with Saharghat P.S. Case
No. 56 of 2024 (S.T. No.130 of 2025) on furnishing bail bond
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76873 of 2025(2) dt.06-02-2026
4/4
of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.
1st, Madhubani/concerned court, subject to the conditions as
mentioned under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. with further
conditions:-
(i) If petitioner made any deliberate
attempt to delay trial, State/informant shall
be at liberty to press petition before the
learned Trial Court for cancellation of bail
bold of petitioner by learned Trial Court,
itself, which shall be decided by learned Trial
Court, in accordance with law after giving fair
opportunity to
petitioner.
(ii) Accused/Petitioner shall cooperate in
the trial and shall be physically present on
each and every date before the Trial Court till
conclusion of the trial and exemption from
physical appearance be allowed by the Trial
Court, only on medical ground of the
petitioner duly supported by the documents.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…