Patna High Court
Hari Yadav @ Harilal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, absence of material evidence beyond suspicion, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent warrant the grant of bail.
Summary
Hari Yadav was arrested on 3 September 2025 in connection with a case registered under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The FIR was lodged on 23 December 2024, about 45 days after the alleged incident, and the prosecution’s case rests solely on the suspicion that the victim’s son was last seen with the petitioner. The petitioner, who has a clean antecedent, argued that no material evidence links him to the offence and that the delay in filing the FIR is unexplained. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner was the last person seen with the victim. The court, noting the unexplained delay, lack of substantive evidence, and the petitioner’s clean record, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented without further delay for verification.
Issues considered
- The propriety of granting bail when the FIR is filed after a substantial delay.
- Whether mere suspicion, without corroborative material, suffices for continued detention.
- Impact of the petitioner’s clean criminal antecedent on bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 137(2), 140(3)
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- suspicion
- criminal antecedent
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- Sections 137, 140
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78827 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2024 Thana- Mau District- Gaya
======================================================
Hari Yadav @ Harilal Yadav Son of Bablu Yadav @ Bullu Yadav R/o Village
- Kamalpur, P.S.- Mau, District - Gaya Ji, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the informant
and Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
03.09.2025 in connection with Mau P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024,
F.I.R. dated 23.12.2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant's son
was last seen with this petitioner and since then, he was
traceless.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78827 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/3
implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R that the
date of occurrence is 09.11.2024 but the present F.I.R has been
instituted on 23.12.2024 i.e., after delay of about 45 days
without giving any explanation of the said delay. The petitioner
has been made accused merely on the basis of suspicion and
except the suspicion, no other cogent material has come during
investigation which suggests the involvement of the petitioner in
the present occurrence. He further submits that the police after
investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner.
The petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the victim was
last seen with the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the F.I.R has been instituted after delay of about 45 days,
petitioner has clean antecedent and except suspicion no other
material has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1 st Class,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78827 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/3
Gaya Ji in connection with Mau P.S. Case No. 110 of 2024,
subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…