Patna High Court
Gurusahai Yadav @ Gurudayal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Gurusahai Yadav and Nuneshwr Yadav, were arrested in connection with a 2005 Naxalite encounter and charged under multiple sections of the IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act and the CLA Act. They have been in custody since May 2025 and claim no prior criminal record. Their counsel argued that the only basis for their implication is the confessional statements of co‑accused who were apprehended, and that no material was recovered from the petitioners nor any specific allegation made against them. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. Considering the lack of specific evidence, the petitioners' clean antecedent, and the fact that another co‑accused had already been granted bail, the Court ordered bail with a bond of Rs.15,000 each, two sureties, a family member as bailor, and strict appearance conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the grave nature of the charges.
- Whether the reliance solely on co‑accused confessional statements, without specific allegations or recovered material, justifies bail.
- Whether parity with another co‑accused who was granted bail influences the decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27
- CLA Act — s. 17
- Explosive Substances Act — s. 3, 5
- Indian Penal Code — s. 121, 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 414
Subjects
- bail
- Naxalite encounter
- IPC
- Arms Act
- Explosive Substances Act
- criminal antecedent
- co‑accused confession
- parity
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87736 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2005 Thana- SONO District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Gurusahai Yadav @ Gurudayal Yadav Son of Dwarika Yadav Resident of
Village- Kharik, P.S.- Sono ( Charkapathar), District -Jamui
2. Nuneshwr Yadav @ Kailu Yadav son of Dwarika yadav Resident of Village-
Kharik, P.S.- Sono ( Charkapathar), District -Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Sono
(Charkapathar) P.S. Case No. 02 of 2005 instituted for the
offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 307, 414 & 121 of
the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 & 27 of the Arms
Act, Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17
of the CLA Act.
3. On 11.01.2005, police acting on secret information
raided ‘Pahar Baba Jungle’, where 20–25 armed naxalites in
police uniform opened fire, leading to a counter-attack. Two
accused, Mangal Rai and Bhola Thakur, were apprehended and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87736 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
arms, cartridges, cash, and naxalite literature were recovered.
They disclosed the names of other fleeing associates, including
the petitioners.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that the petitioners are in custody since 24-05-2025. Petitioners
bear no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in
paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioners’
counsel that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
neither petitioners have been apprehended from the alleged
place of occurrence nor anything has been recovered from their
possession and they have been implicated in the instant case on
mere suspicion on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused, namely, Mangal Rai and Bhola Thakur. There is no
specific allegation against the petitioners, hence, petitioners
deserves the privilege of bail. Other co-accused has been
granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22-09-2025, passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 36659 of 2025.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87736 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
of the case, period of custody of the petitioners and there being
no specific allegation against the petitioners as also claim based
on parity, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
8. Let the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Sono (Charkapathar)
P.S. Case No. 02 of 2005, subject to the following conditions:
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the
family of the petitioners.
(II) The petitioners 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 petitioners.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…