Patna High Court
Abhijit Yadav @ Abhijit Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious charges, owing to the prolonged pre‑trial detention, lack of eye‑witness testimony and the trial not being likely to conclude soon.
Summary
Abhijit Yadav was arrested on 16‑12‑2020 in connection with a murder case (Sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 IPC) and has been in custody for over five years. The prosecution’s case is based on the suspicion of an informant and lacks any eye‑witness testimony; out of five charge‑sheet witnesses, only three have been examined and none supported the prosecution. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. The State highlighted nine prior criminal antecedents but could not produce further evidence. Considering the prolonged pre‑trial detention, the weak evidential basis and the delay in the trial, the High Court granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed standard conditions for cooperation and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving murder, attempt to murder and conspiracy despite the seriousness of the offences.
- Whether the absence of eye‑witness testimony and the delay in trial justify granting bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 201, 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- murder
- conspiracy
- trial delay
- criminal antecedent
- Indian Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82695 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-534 Year-2020 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria
======================================================
Abhijit Yadav @ Abhijit Kumar Yadav S/o Nand Kishor Yadav R/o Village -
Rajgaw, P.S - Jadiya, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
16.12.2020 in connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 534 of
2020 (S.T. 176/2021), F.I.R. dated 05.12.2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 of Indian Penal
Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
suspects that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons
killed his brother.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82695 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
false and fabricated. Informant is not the eye witness of the
alleged occurrence and even no one had seen the occurrence and
merely on the basis of suspicion, the petitioner has been made
accused in the present case. He further submits that charge has
been framed and trial has begun and out of five charge-sheet
witnesses, three witnesses have been examined but they have
not supported the case of the prosecution and they have stated
that they are not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence.
5. Vide order dated 02.12.2025 a report was called
with regard to stage of the trial. Report of the learned trial Court
dated 18.12.2025 reveals that out of five charge-sheet witnesses,
three witnesses have examined.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that last
witness was examined on 25.07.2023 and thereafter the
prosecution has not examined any witness as yet and in view of
the report of the learned trial Court the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future and the petitioner is in custody
16.12.2020 which is more than five years.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner carries nine criminal antecedents
other than the present one but fairly submits that witnesses have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82695 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
not supported the case of the prosecution before the learned trial
Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
as well as report of learned trial Court and period of custody, 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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Narpatganj P.S.
Case No. 534 of 2020, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82695 of 2025(3) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
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)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…