Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Karu Yadav @ Loha Singh @ Baleshwar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner.

Summary

Petitioner Karu Yadav sought regular bail for a 2015 case involving multiple serious offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Explosive Substances Act and the CLA Act. The prosecution alleged that a police raid, based on a secret informant, recovered four mobile phones, four can bombs, five live cartridges and one blank cartridge. The petitioner had been in custody since 27‑06‑2025 and was also implicated in three other cases. The court noted the petitioner’s status as an absconder, his antecedents and the gravity of the allegations, and consequently declined to grant bail. The bail application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations were limited to this application and did not prejudice the merits of the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature and seriousness of the offences alleged
  • Whether the petitioner’s alleged absconding and antecedent circumstances justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • explosive substances
  • absconder
  • antecedents
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88382 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-457 Year-2015 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Karu Yadav @ Loha Singh @ Baleshwar Yadav S/o Tikam Yadav Resident of
                 Village- Matagadha, P.S.- Mohanpur, Distt.- Gaya

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Vijay Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   16-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                    2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection

                   with Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 457 of 2015

                   registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,

                   323, 342, 307, 353, 427, 212 of the Indian Penal Code, under

                   Section ¾ of the Indian Explosive Substance Act and under

                   Section 17 of the CLA Act.

                                   3. As per the prosecution case, on secret informant,

                   when the police raided the place, the recovery is of four mobile

                   sets, four can bombs, five live cartridges and one blank

                   cartridge.

                                   4. The petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2025 in

                   a case which has been registered in the year 2015. He is accused
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88382 of 2025(5) dt.16-04-2026
                                                      2/2




                    in three more cases.

                                    5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is an

                    absconder, the antecedent of the petitioner and the nature of

                    allegation levelled against him, this Court is not inclined to

                    grant bail to the petitioner.

                                    6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

                                    7. It is, however, clarified that the observations

                    made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail

                    application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at

                    any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not

                    expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.



                                                              (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-

U


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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