Patna High Court
Suphal Yadav @ Sufal Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Suphal Yadav applied for regular bail in a case registered under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in a shooting incident that resulted in the death of the informant's son. The prosecution alleged that Yadav and a co‑accused fired their weapons, with the co‑accused's shot causing the fatal injury. The petitioner contended that no injury was caused by his shot and that the FIR narrative was inaccurate. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the direct allegation against the petitioner, the death of a person, and the commencement of trial with two prosecution witnesses already examined. Considering the seriousness of the charge, the death of a victim, and the progress of the trial, the Court refused to grant bail and directed the informant to produce the remaining witnesses to expedite the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act in view of the alleged homicide.
- Whether the existence of a death and the commencement of trial with prosecution witnesses preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- homicide
- arms act
- section 103
- section 3
- section 27
- FIR
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88210 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar
======================================================
Suphal Yadav @ Sufal Kumar Yadav S/o Late Bisu Yadav Resident of Village
- Pagalbari, P.S.- Manihari, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K.Sinha, Advocate
Md. Musowir, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Rambabu Yadav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Manihari P.S. Case
no.123 of 2025 registered under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and one
another are said to have come and fired from their respective
firearms. While the shot fired by the petitioner aimed at the
informant missed, it is stated that the shot fired by co-accused
Guddu Yadav hit the son of the informant namely Mukesh
Kumar Yadav who died on the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88210 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No such
occurrence as alleged in the FIR has taken place. The manner of
occurrence is other than what has been narrated in the FIR. In
any case of the matter so far as the shot fired by the petitioner is
concerned, no injury was caused to any person including the
informant. The petitioner is in custody since 8.5.2025 and
undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that there is direct and
specific allegation against the petitioner and one another of
having fired upon the informant and his son. The son of the
informant died in the occurrence. The trial has commenced with
two out of the seven chargesheet witnesses having been
examined on behalf of the prosecution and as per instructions
received, they have supported the prosecution case also against
this petitioner. Once the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will
not permit the trial to conclude.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR, one person having died in the occurrence, the trial
having commenced with two out of the seven chargesheet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88210 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, the Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application
is rejected.
7. It is directed that the informant shall produce all the
remaining non-official witnesses on each date fixed in the
learned trial Court and the learned trial Court will expedite the
trial.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
Checking your session…