Patna High Court
Naresh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted subject to conditions as the prosecution failed to establish sufficient material linking the petitioner to the offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Naresh Yadav, applied for bail in a case registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code concerning the disappearance of a 22‑year‑old man. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner made phone calls to the missing person and, based on diary entries, was implicated in concealing the victim, though no eyewitness testimony or concrete evidence was presented. The petitioner argued that the FIR named no accused, the only material was call detail records, and he had been in judicial custody since July 2025. The State opposed bail, citing the call records and the petitioner’s nine prior criminal cases. After hearing both sides, the court granted bail with conditions of cooperation, regular court attendance, and weekly reporting to the police, requiring a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in an offence under Section 365 IPC given the available evidence and his criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 365
Subjects
- bail
- Section 365 IPC
- call detail records
- criminal antecedent
- judicial custody
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89449 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2020 Thana- PASRAHA District- Khagaria
======================================================
Naresh Yadav Son of Bisheshwar Yadav Resident of Village- Bandehara, P.S.-
Pasraha, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
4 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Pasraha P.S. Case No.36 of 2020 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the son
of the informant, namely, Manish Kumar @ Vishal Kumar aged
about 22 years was missing from 19.04.2020. When the
informant made call on his mobile, the mobile was switch off.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that as per the case of the prosecution,
the date of occurrence is 19.04.2020 and the FIR was lodged on
23.04.2020 and that in FIR there is no name of any accused
persons. During course of investigation it has come in Paragraph
‘41’ of the case diary that the petitioner and one Tufani Yadav
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89449 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
had calls with the deceased. The witnesses who have been
examined during course of examination have stated that on the
basis of above information the petitioner and one Tufani have
concealed him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that in Paragraph ‘167’ also it has come from the
mouth of spy that the petitioner and one Tufani are having role
in the present offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the case and
from perusal of the entire diary it is clear that save and except
CDR and that the petitioner had made calls to the son of the
informant, there is nothing against him. Till today, neither the
son of the informant is recovered nor any cogent material has
been brought on record to establish the role of this petitioner in
the occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
18.07.2025.
5. Countering this, learned APP for the State has
vehemently opposed the bail and has stated that as the petitioner
had made calls to the son of the informant, there is specific
material against him. Learned APP has further submitted that the
petitioner is having criminal antecedent of nine cases.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89449 of 2025(4) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the condition that
the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial; shall remain
physically present on each and every date in the learned trial
court whenever required and shall also mark his weekly
attendance at Pasraha P.S. The above named petitioner is
directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned C.J.M.,
Khagaria in connection with Pasraha P.S. Case No.36 of 2020.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…