Patna High Court
Yogendra PanditversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
Bail was not granted; the application was dismissed, though the petitioner may file a fresh provisional bail application on the ground of his wife's illness.
Summary
Yogendra Pandit was charged under Sections 302, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly contracting the murder of a deceased person. He has been in custody since February 2024 and previously applied for bail, which was rejected on the ground that he was the mastermind of the conspiracy. In a second bail application, his counsel argued that the trial was delayed, he was not the actual shooter, and his wife was suffering from cancer. The Court held that the seriousness of the offences and the allegation that he arranged the killing outweighed the personal circumstances, and therefore dismissed the bail application, directing the trial court to expedite the trial. The petitioner was permitted to file a fresh application for provisional bail on the basis of his wife's illness.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused alleged to have contracted a murder and conspired to commit the offence under Sections 302, 120(B), 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
- Whether trial delay and the petitioner’s personal circumstances (wife’s illness) justify bail in a serious criminal case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- arms act
- trial delay
- personal illness
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79448 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2024 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Yogendra Pandit S/o Late Gokhula Pandit R/o Village- Banjaari, P.S.- Town,
District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Srishti Kumari, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Raju Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
informant.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Gopalganj Town
P.S. Case No. 35/2024 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 302/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 21.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 34146 of 2024, which reads as under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79448 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Gopalganj Town P.S. Case No.
35/2024 registered for the offence punishable
under Sections 302/120(B)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. In the F.I.R., six persons are named
who have participated in the killing of the
deceased. Mukesh Kushwaha and Rajpal
Kushwaha are the assailant of the deceased.
They have shot at the head of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that there is no allegation of any overact
against the petitioner though the petitioner is
named in the F.I.R. The petitioner is in jail since
29.02.2024 and he deserves bail.
5. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has taken this Court through the case
diary in which it has come that it is petitioner
who had given the contract for killing the
deceased and he had arranged the person to
identify the deceased i.e. he is a part of the
conspiracy and the murder has been committed
at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner is
also accused in 18 serious cases.
6. Considering the fact that the
petitioner is a part of the conspiracy of contract
killing and has initiated the crime by arranging
the person to identify the deceased who has been
subsequently killed by the assailants namely
Mukesh Kushwaha and Rajpal Kushwaha, I am
not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. It is
accordingly dismissed.
7. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial.”
4. It is argued by Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner that the trial is being delayed and the
petitioner is not the assailant of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79448 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
5. Learned counsel for the informant has submitted
that because of the non appearance of the co-accused, who have
been granted bail, the charges are not being framed.
6. In these circumstances, when the trial is being
delayed by the prosecution, I am not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner in such a serious case when he had given the contract
for killing the deceased.
7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
8. In course of argument, Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the wife of the
petitioner is suffering from cancer and therefore this may be a
ground for grant of bail.
9. In my opinion, this will not be a ground for
granting permanent bail. The petitioner is given liberty to file a
fresh application for grant of provisional bail on the ground of
illness of his wife.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…