Patna High Court
Puran YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage due to the direct allegation of a serious offence and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Puran Yadav, was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged firing at the head of an informant's son, charged under multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution presented the injured party’s statement and a medical report indicating grievous injury, along with the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents. The petitioner claimed innocence, citing a contradictory statement from the injured party’s wife and alleging a delay in filing the FIR. The court, after hearing both sides, found the direct allegation and seriousness of the offences sufficient to deny regular bail at this stage. However, the court allowed the petitioner to re‑apply for bail after six months if the trial remains pending and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and the evidence against him
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the contradictory statements affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 308(5), 3(5), 351(2)
Subjects
- regular bail
- bail application
- arms act
- criminal antecedent
- FIR delay
- grievous injury
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86406 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Puran Yadav S/o Kapildev Yadav Resident of Village- Usri, Ward No. 14,
P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in
connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 49 of 2025 instituted for
the offence under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 109, 308(5),
351(2) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has
fired at the head of the informant’s son due to which he
sustained injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further
submitted that during investigation, the wife of the injured has
given her statement before the police wherein she has stated that
actually, one Aman has fired at her husband. Learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86406 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
has further submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that
the occurrence is of 20.02.2025 whereas the FIR was lodged on
25.02.2025. The delay has not been explained. Though the
medical examination report supports the allegation but it is
after-thought. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial
custody since 24.06.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that during investigation, the injured has given his
statement in para-14 of the case diary wherein he has
categorically stated that the petitioner has fired at him in the
head and the nature of injury is grievous as per injury report. He
has further submitted that petitioner is having criminal
antecedent of three cases.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against
this petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands
rejected.
7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86406 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
and conclude the same as within the period as stated above.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…