Patna High Court
SHRI BHAGWAN YADAV @ BHAGWAN YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioners with conditions of personal appearance and bond requirements.
Summary
The petitioners, Bhagwan Yadav and Hararam Yadav, applied for regular bail in a case registered in 2010 under several IPC sections (341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 379, 511/34). They had previously been granted bail, but their bail bonds were cancelled multiple times (2014, 2018, 2025) for non‑appearance, and they have been in custody since 5 November 2025. The petitioners argued that they would now comply with court orders and not misuse bail. The High Court, after hearing counsel, considered the history of bail cancellations and the petitioners' present willingness to appear, and decided to grant bail on the condition of personal appearance at every trial date, with non‑compliance leading to cancellation. Each petitioner was ordered to furnish a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, to be satisfied by the Additional Sessions Judge‑V, Buxar.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to petitioners despite prior cancellations for non‑appearance
- Whether the petitioners' alleged willingness to comply negates a finding of misuse of bail privilege
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 379, 504, 511
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- misuse of bail
- IPC offenses
- court conditions
- trial court appearance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89940 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2010 Thana- ITARHI District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Shri Bhagwan Yadav @ Bhagwan Yadav S/O Late Shingur Yadav R/o vill -
Godaipur, P.S.- Itarhi, Distt.- Buxar
2. Hararam Yadav @ Hararam Singh Yadav S/o Late Jhugur Yadav @ Jhingur
Yadav R/o vill - Godaipur, P.S.- Itarhi, Distt.- Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324,
307, 504, 379 and 511/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
at the outset it is a case of misuse of privilege of bail. It has been
submitted that the petitioners were released on bail by the learned
trial court vide order dated 03.04.2010 and their bail bond was
cancelled on 09.06.2014. It is further alleged that on 24.05.2018,
their bail bond was cancelled and again on 13.06.2025, their bail
bond was cancelled due to non-appearance of the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
now the petitioners will abide by the order of the Court and will
not misuse the privilege of bail. The petitioners are in judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89940 of 2025(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/2
custody since 05.11.2025.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail
with the condition that the petitioners shall be present on each and
every date in the learned trial court and absence, if any, on any
date will result in cancellation of their bail bond by the learned
trial court.
6. The above named petitioners are directed to be
released on bail in connection with Itarhi P.S. Case No. 41 of 2010
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each of them
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Buxar.
7. Since it is a case of the year 2010, before parting, I
would like to note that it is very strange that even the officer in
the cadre of ADJ are not able to understand the plight of the
litigant and on the simple misuse of bail, their bail is rejected.
This shows that either the concerned court is unaware of its
jurisdiction or does not know to exercise its jurisdiction.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…