Patna High Court
Ritesh Kumar Yadav @ Riteh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Ritesh Kumar Yadav, the brother of a murder victim, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, was involved in the killing of the informant’s son and cited diary entries indicating a confession and a motive of illicit relationship. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR, has no criminal antecedent, and was falsely implicated during investigation. The court examined the seriousness of the offence, the alleged confession, and the Supreme Court’s precedent in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024). Considering the heinous nature of the allegations and the investigation material, the court refused to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita given the nature of the alleged murder.
- Whether the alleged confession and investigation diary entries preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑inclusion in the FIR but later implication affects bail eligibility.
- Application of the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) to the present bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- confession
- investigation diary
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91482 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2025 Thana- Rajeshwari District- Supaul
======================================================
Ritesh Kumar Yadav @ Riteh Kumar Son of Upendra Yadav Resident of
Village- Ratansar Ward No. 06, P.S.- Rajeshwari, District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 06-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Rajeshwari P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025
registered for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 18.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 49171 of 2025 which
reads as follows:-
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this
application for grant of regular bail in
connection with Rajeshwari P.S. Case No. 14 of
2025 dated registered for the offences
punishable u/ss 103(1) read with Section 3(5) of
the B.N.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91482 of 2025(5) dt.06-04-2026
2/3
3. As per the prosecution case, the
informant alleged that there was enmity between
his son, Ravi Kumar and the coaccused, Sanjay
Mandal, Anmol Yadav and Shalen Yadav over
monetary transactions. The above named
accused persons threatened the informant's son
to kidnap and kill him. It is further alleged that
the informant's son had given money to the
coaccused, Anmol Yadav but he did not return
the same and in this regard, the accused persons
were threatening the informant's son.On
24.01.2025, the informant's son went to sleep on
the verandah of his door and after that the
informant's wife woke up at 1.00 A.M. and went
to check on the cattle and saw that her son's
mouth was stuffed with a muffler and his muffler
was tied around his neck and he was hanging in
the barn of the house. Thereafter, the
informant's wife started crying then the
informant went there and saw that his son Ravi
Kumar was dead.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and
has falsely been implicated in this case. The
petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of
the petitioner has surfaced in this case during
the course of investigation. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is the full brother
of the deceased and the son of the informant and
there was no dispute between the petitioner and
the deceased. It is further submitted that the
F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant alleging
therein that there was some previous enmity
between the deceased and the F.I.R. named
accused persons. It is further submitted that the
specific allegation of commission of murder of
the informant's son is against the F.I.R. named
accused persons and the petitioner has no
concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner
has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3
of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody
since 04.03.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91482 of 2025(5) dt.06-04-2026
3/3
opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and
submitted that during the course of
investigation, as per para 109, 147 and 163 of
the case diary in which the deceased had illicit
relationship with his sister-in-law (bhabhi) who
is the wife of the petitioner due to which there
were often used to occur scuffle between the
deceased and the petitioner on the issue of illicit
relationship. It is further submitted that due to
alleged illicit relationship, the petitioner with
his associates killed the deceased which is
evident during the course of investigation.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner confessed his guilt in the alleged
crime as stated in para 166 of the case diary.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case as well as the
heinous nature of allegation against the
petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the
petitioner above-named on bail.
7. The application stands rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
out of twelve witnesses, six witnesses have been examined.
5. Considering the fact that the trial is progressing and
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs.
State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539, I am
not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,
this application for regular bail stands rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.