Patna High Court
Raja YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Raja Yadav, was arrested in connection with a violent robbery and shooting incident for which he is charged under Sections 302, 394, 427 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He claims he was falsely implicated, arguing that he is not named in the FIR and was only linked to the case through a co‑accused's confessional statement, while eyewitnesses did not identify him. The petitioner has fourteen prior criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 13‑06‑2025. The State, supported by the post‑mortem report, opposed bail, contending that there is cogent material against him and noting that bail was denied to similarly situated co‑accused in a recent order. The High Court, after considering the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s criminal history, and the evidential material, refused the bail application and directed the trial court to expedite the trial without undue delays.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with murder, robbery, and arms offences given the seriousness of the charges and his prior criminal record.
- Whether the identification of the petitioner through a co‑accused’s confession, absent mention in the FIR, is sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 394, 427
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- murder
- robbery
- criminal antecedents
- identification
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91312 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2024 Thana- BANMANKHI District- Purnia
======================================================
Raja Yadav S/o- Harinandan Yadav @ Budhan Yadav Village- Shyam, Ward
no-10, P.S- Gawalpara, Distt-Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Kumar Prabhakar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State as also learned counsel for the informant. Perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 189 of 2024 instituted for the offence
under Sections 302, 394, 427 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. On 17.05.2024, four armed criminals intercepted a
CSP operator, fired gunshots, and looted a cash-filled bag from
their motorcycle. During the scuffle, the CSP operator was shot
and injured, while the assailants fled toward Hridaynagar.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner is in custody since 13-06-2025. Petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91312 of 2025(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
bears fourteen (14) criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made
in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s
counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present
case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner
has surfaced in this case on the basis of confessional statement
of co-accused, namely, Nitish Kumar Rishideo. The FIR reveals
that the incident occurred in broad daylight with accused having
uncovered faces, and eyewitnesses Gulab Rishideo and Sanjay
Paswan claimed to identify the accused, yet the petitioner was
not identified in the TIP. Charge is framed in this case.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is
submitted that postmortem report corroborates the allegation
against the petitioner. Bail of similarly situated co-accused
persons have been rejected by this Court vide order dated
05.05.2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 5736 of 2025.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, there being cogent material against the petitioner in
the case diary coupled with the fact that since the trial is in
progress, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
Prayer for grant of bail is, accordingly, rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91312 of 2025(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
8. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and
unnecessary adjournments.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.