Patna High Court

Gajendar Yadav @ Gajendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 3 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court refused to grant regular bail to the petitioner, allowing a re‑application after six months if the trial is not concluded.

Summary

The petitioner, Gajendar Yadav, sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of the informant's husband. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others killed the deceased, citing a forensic report that the death was not a road accident and CDR evidence placing the petitioner at the same location as the victim. The petitioner argued that the post‑mortem indicated an accidental death and contested the forensic conclusions. The informant opposed bail, emphasizing the forensic and CDR evidence. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail at this stage, permitting the petitioner to renew the application after six months if the trial remains pending.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused in a murder and criminal conspiracy case at the pre‑trial stage.
Whether forensic and post‑mortem findings indicating non‑accidental death justify denial of bail.
Whether CDR evidence linking the petitioner to the crime scene precludes bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC 302
criminal conspiracy
forensic evidence
CDR
high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87924 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-501 Year-2023 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
                 ======================================================
                 Gajendar Yadav @ Gajendra Yadav S/o Late Baldev Yadav R/o vill -
                 Madanpur, Garib Tola, Ward No.08, P.S - Madhepura, Bharrahi, District -
                 Madhepura

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s   :        Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                                 Dr Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the State          :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 For the Informant      :        Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   03-02-2026                   Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner,

                   learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

                                 2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and

                   120B of the Indian Penal Code.

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

                   husband of the informant has gone to the house of the petitioner

                   and when the informant called on his mobile he informed that

                   he will come after half an hour. It is further case of the

                   prosecution that the informant fall asleep at 12:30 in the night.

                   Anil Yadav, brother-in-law of the informant informed that the

                   dead body of her husband is lying at Godhiyari. After this,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87924 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                            2/3




          family members rushed to the place of occurrence wherein they

          found that the bike of the deceased was all well. The informant

          suspects that the petitioner along with others have killed her

          husband.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

          that from perusal of the post-mortem report it will transpire that

          the cause of death is accident but there is report of FSL which

          goes to show that the death is not due to accident and it is not a

          road accident.

                       5. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently

          opposed the bail and has submitted that during course of

          investigation the I.O. has collected the CDR of the mobile of the

          deceased and from the CDR of the mobile it is clear that the

          tower location of the deceased and that of the petitioner was at

          same place. Learned counsel for the informant has mainly relied

          on the conclusion of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,

          Bhagalpur regarding the crime scene report which has

          concluded that “after investigating the case and taking all the

          possible situations we came to the conclusion on the prima

          facie firmly that the cause of the death of the mortorcyclist

          could not be the road accident”.

                       6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87924 of 2025(3) dt.03-02-2026
                                                        3/3




                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not

                      inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he

                      may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not

                      concluded.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…