Patna High Court
Yogendra Yadav @ Manjhala YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner as the prosecution failed to produce direct evidence linking him to the offences.
Summary
Yogendra Yadav was arrested in connection with a murder case (PS Makhdumpur Case No.283/2025) where the son of an informant was shot and later died. The prosecution’s case rests mainly on a confessional statement of co‑accused Dablu Kumar, which mentions other participants but does not specifically implicate Yadav. Yadav’s counsel argued that he has a clean antecedent, is not named in the FIR, and that no direct material links him to the offence. The State opposed bail, relying on the same confessional statement and the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. The court, noting the lack of direct evidence against Yadav and his clean record, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions for cooperation and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused when the primary evidence is a confessional statement of a co‑accused that does not expressly name the accused.
- Whether the absence of the accused’s name in the FIR and lack of direct material evidence justify bail despite the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- murder
- Arms Act
- clean antecedent
- FIR
- co‑accused
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89996 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Yogendra Yadav @ Manjhala Yadav S/o- Kishori Yadav Village- Chhajjopur
Police Station- Makhdumnpur District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Prasad Sharma, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard Mr. Mithilesh Prasad Sharma, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Gyanendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
23.07.2025, in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 283 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 26.04.2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms
Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.04.2025
at about 7:15 P.M., the informant’s son Bablu Kumar along with
his friend Rohit Kumar was going to Makhdumpur by cycle and as
soon as they reached near chhota pool, situated in Dhankaul, two
unknown miscreants boarded on motorcycle fired upon the son of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89996 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/4
the informant which hit in his back side of head thereafter they
fled away. It is further alleged that with the help of police the
informant’s son was brought to Makhdumpur Hospital from where
he was referred to PMCH, Patna for better treatment where the son
of the informant was declared dead.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated
in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not
named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been
transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused person, namely, Dablu Kumar which was
recorded in paragraph-51 of the case diary and except the
aforesaid, no other cogent material has come during investigation
to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present
occurrence and co-accused Dablu Kumar has confessed his guilt in
the present occurrence and he has given detailed modus operandi
as to how the occurrence of murder was committed with the
connivance of other co-accused persons including the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the
name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused person but from perusal of
the confessional statement of co-accused person, namely Dablu
Kumar which was recorded in paragraph 21 of the case diary
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89996 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/4
which suggests that co-accused Ruhul Kumar has fired upon the
victim and Dablu Kumar has not assigned any role in the present
occurrence with regard to the petitiner. He further submits that the
police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the
petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 23.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand,
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused
person, namely, Dablu Kumar, the arms which was used in the
present occurrence has been received by the prosecution but fairly
submits that said Dablu Kumar has not assigned any role in the
present occurrence with regard to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent as well as
he is not named in the F.I.R. and co-accused Dablu Kumar has not
assigned any role to the petitioner in the present occurrence , let
the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Judge I-
cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in
connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 283 of 2025, subject
to the following conditions :-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89996 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
4/4
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on
his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his
bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any
stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…