Patna High Court
Hari Charan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is dismissed; the accused must remain in custody while the trial is expedited.
Summary
Hari Charan Yadav, charged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, applied for regular bail after being in judicial custody since 5 February 2025. This was his second bail application; the first was rejected. The trial has examined four of ten charge‑sheet witnesses and is expected to conclude within six months. The petitioner argued that he was being detained without reason and that the trial was not near completion, while the State relied on a recent Supreme Court decision cautioning against bail in serious offences once trial has commenced. The High Court found no new ground for bail, noted the advanced stage of the trial, and rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within three months and allowing a fresh bail application if the trial is not concluded.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder and arms offences at an advanced stage of trial
- Whether the petitioner has raised any new ground justifying bail
- Applicability of the Supreme Court precedent (X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) to the present bail application
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- IPC
- Arms Act
- trial delay
- high court
- serious offences
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80353 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-495 Year-2023 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Hari Charan Yadav Son of Nanhak Yadav Resident of Village - Lakhawar, P.S.
- Ghoshi, District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karu Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S. Tr.
No. 28879 of 2025, arising out of Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 495 of
2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 302 & 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. This is the second attempt of the petitioner for bail.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of regular bail
which was earlier rejected on merit by this Court vide order
dated 25.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39845 of 2025, taking
into account the fact that specific allegation against the
petitioner.
4. In compliance of the order dated 21.11.2025, a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80353 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
report dated 19.12.2025, with regard to the present stage of trial
has been received. From perusal of the aforesaid report, it
appears that four out of ten charge sheet witnesses have been
examined in this case. It is further reported that trial is likely to
be concluded within a period of six months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 05.02.2025
without any rhymes or reason. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no likelihood of the trial being
concluded in the near future.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
grant of bail. Learned APP has further relied upon a decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3539
(X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), wherein in paragraph No.14,
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:
“14. Ordinarily in
serious offences like rape,
murder, dacoity, etc., once
the trial commences and the
prosecution starts examining
its witnesses, the Court be it
the Trial Court or the High
Court should be loath in
entertaining the bail
application of the accused.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80353 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
of the petitioner. From the aforesaid report, it appears that the
trial is going on and is at an advance stage.
8. In view of the above, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner is again rejected with a direction to the court below to
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of three months from today. If the
trial is not concluded within the period of three months, as
stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer
before the court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.