Patna High Court
Guddu Yadav @ Niranjan Yadav @ GudduversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The court granted bail, holding that continued detention would be punitive and contrary to the spirit of Article 21.
Summary
Guddu Yadav was arrested in connection with a murder case (IPC Sections 302/34) and an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. He has been in custody since 23 August 2023, and two earlier applications for regular bail were rejected, with the court allowing a re‑application after three months. On his third bail application, counsel argued that the trial was far from conclusion, with two witnesses yet to be examined, and that continued pre‑trial detention violated his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21. The State opposed the bail. Considering the prolonged detention and lack of progress in the trial, the court held that continued incarceration served no purpose other than punitive pre‑trial detention and granted bail subject to a bond of Rs.15,000, two sureties, a family member as a bailor, and strict appearance conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s continued pre‑trial detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution given the delay in trial.
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving murder (IPC 302/34) and an arms offence (Arms Act 27).
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- bail
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- murder
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85766 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2023 Thana- MALI District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Guddu Yadav @ Niranjan Yadav @ Guddu S/O Chandradeo Yadav R/O
Village- Bisai, P.S- Mali, Distt.- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Mukul Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, 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
Sessions Trial No. 14/2024/07/2024 arising out of Mali P.S.
Case No. 77 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Earlier vide order dated 06.03.2024 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 13853 of 2024 and again vide order dated 08.08.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55708 of 2025, regular bail of the
petitioner was rejected twice by this Court considering the
nature of accusation against the petitioner and gravity of
offence. Vide order dated 08.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85766 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/3
55708 of 2025, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the
prayer for bail after three months if the trial is not concluded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present one is the third attempt for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner. It is mainly submitted that vide order dated
08.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 55708 of 2025, the liberty
was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after
three months if the trial is not concluded. She further submitted
that two witnesses are yet to be examined and the petitioner is in
custody since 23.08.2023 . Learned counsel further submits that
there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near
future. Learned counsel goes on to submit that the continued
incarceration of the petitioner without conclusion of trial
amounts to a gross violation of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is reiterated
by Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, period of custody of the petitioner and taking into
account the fact that continued detention of the petitioner would
serve no purpose other than punitive pretrial incarceration,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85766 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
3/3
which is antithetical to the spirit of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
6. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Sessions Trial No.
14/2024/07/2024 arising out of Mali P.S. Case No. 77 of 2023,
subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two
consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.