Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Vijay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The petitioner is entitled to bail.

Summary

Vijay Kumar was arrested in connection with a shooting case (Murliganj P.S. Case No. 200 of 2023) involving offences under Sections 341, 342, 386, 302, 120B, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that several persons, including the petitioner, fired at the informant's husband, leading to his death. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the primary blame lay with Anil Yadav and Bauaa Yadav, and that the post‑mortem report showed only two entry wounds inconsistent with the FIR. He also highlighted his clean criminal record and his custody since 09‑04‑2025. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court found insufficient justification to keep him detained and ordered that he be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail pending trial for the offences alleged under the IPC and Arms Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Arms Act
  • criminal procedure
  • murder
  • conspiracy
  • court order

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86221 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2023 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Vijay Kumar Son of Amod @ Duno Yadav R/o Village - Pokhram Ward no. 3,
                 P.S. - Murliganj, Dist. - Madhepura.
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER
3   24-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Murliganj P.S. Case No. 200 of 2023 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 341, 342, 386, 302, 120B, 504 and 506

                   of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that Anil

                   Yadav and Bauaa Yadav have fired at the chest of the informant's

                   husband. The third fire was made by one Nitish Kumar and after

                   that the husband of the informant fell down and Sharawn Kumar

                   and the petitioner also fired at him.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

                   offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also

                   submits that the main thrust of the allegation is against Anil Yadav

                   and Bauaa Yadav. He also submits that the allegation against the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86221 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     petitioner is that he has fired at the husband of the informant and

                     he fell down due to the fires made by Anil Yadav and Bauaa

                     Yadav. He further submits that from perusal of the postmortem

                     report of the deceased, it will transpire that there were only two

                     entry wounds on the person of the deceased. He also submits that

                     the postmortem does not support the allegations as leveled in the

                     FIR. Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition

                     that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in

                     judicial custody since 09.04.2025.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.          The above named

                     petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond

                     of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the

                     like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., 1 st

                     Class, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 200

                     of 2023.


                                                    (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.