Patna High Court
Pradeep Yadav @ Amit Yadav @ Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The bail petition is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Pradeep Yadav, sought regular bail in a case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This was his second bail application after earlier rejections by the Patna High Court in 2023 and 2025. The petitioner argued that he had been in judicial custody since January 2025, that only four of nine charge‑sheet witnesses had been examined, and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, warranting bail. The State opposed bail, relying on a Supreme Court decision (X. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 SCC Online SC 3539) which cautions courts against granting bail in serious offences once trial is underway. The Court found no new ground for reconsideration, noted that the trial was at an advanced stage, and consequently rejected the bail petition, directing the lower court to expedite the trial within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case involving serious offences such as murder and attempt to murder when the trial is at an advanced stage.
- Whether the petitioner has raised any new ground for bail after earlier rejections.
- Application of the Supreme Court's principle that courts should be loath to grant bail in serious offences once prosecution has begun examining witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 307, 323, 324, 34, 341
Subjects
- bail
- serious offences
- Indian Penal Code
- trial delay
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8238 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2022 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Pradeep Yadav @ Amit Yadav @ Amit Kumar S/O Madan Yadav R/O village
- West Kargahiya, Jamadar Tola, P.S.- Kalibagh, Distict- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bairiya
P.S. Case No. 232 of 2022 instituted for the offences under
Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120B & 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
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 orders
dated 14.03.2023 and 25.06.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No.
71262 of 2022 & Cr. Misc. No. 18108 of 2025, respectively,
taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8238 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.01.2025
without any rhymes or reason, having two (2) criminal
antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all
the four (4) out of nine (9) charge sheet witnesses have been
examined, and there is no significant progress in the trial.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is no likelihood of
the trial being concluded in the near future. It is lastly submitted
that petitioner has suffered long incarceration, hence, he may be
enlarged on bail.
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.”
7. There is no new ground to consider the bail petition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8238 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
of the petitioner, which is already decided by this Court on
merit. It is also explicit that the trial 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 the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order. 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…