Patna High Court
Ram Babu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioner's application for regular bail.
Summary
Ram Babu Yadav was charged under sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting his brother, who later died. He applied for regular bail, arguing that the trial ordered to be completed within nine months had not progressed and he had been in custody since August 2024. The prosecution reported that eight prosecution witnesses had been examined, with only the informant and the investigating officer yet to be examined, and defence witnesses also remained. The Court noted the substantial progress in the trial but found that the investigating officer had not yet been examined and therefore declined to enlarge bail. It directed the Superintendent of Police to ensure the investigating officer’s appearance and ordered the trial to be expedited and concluded within three months after defence witnesses are examined.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused given the delay in trial and pending examination of the investigating officer
- Whether the trial delay justifies enlargement of bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act provisions
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 3(5)
Subjects
- regular bail
- trial delay
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- murder
- expedited trial
- investigating officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91580 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2024 Thana- BENIPATTI District- Madhubani
======================================================
Ram Babu Yadav, S/o- Ram Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village- Kachhara,
Hardiya Tol,Ward No 05, Police Station- Benipatti, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Md Soban Asghar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for grant of
regular bail in connection with Benipatti P.S. Case no.170 of
2024, registered under sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that he received information about his brother having been shot
by unknown accused persons. On reaching the place of
occurrence and taking his brother for treatment, the informant
states that he was declared dead by the doctor.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the earlier application for bail of the petitioner was rejected
vide order dated 24.3.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. no.85261 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91580 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
2/3
2024 directing the learned trial Court to expedite the trial and to
conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months.
Inspite of almost a year having passed since passing of the said
order on 24.3.2025, the trial is still continuing and there is no
chance of the same concluding in the near future. The petitioner
is in custody since 26.8.2024 and undertakes to cooperate in the
trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State.
6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court.
As per the report received contained in letter no.06/2026 dated
20.1.2026 of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-
III, Madhubani, eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution had
been examined till the date of the report and only the informant
and the Investigating Officer of the case remain to be examined.
The report further states that the next date fixed in the trial is
21.1.2026.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that as per oral instructions received, the informant has
been examined but the Investigating Officer is not appearing in
the learned Court below therefore the trial remains pending.
Further the defence witnesses also remain to be examined.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91580 of 2025(4) dt.19-03-2026
3/3
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations in the F.I.R., the
material that has transpired in course of investigation, the
application for bail of the petitioner having been rejected earlier
by order dated 24.3.2025 and the substantial progress in the trial
in the learned trial Court wherein taking into account the
statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, nine
prosecution witnesses have already been examined and only the
Investigating Officer of the case remains to be examined, the
Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the
application is rejected.
9. In case the Investigating Officer of the case namely
Gautam Kumar has not already been examined in the learned
trial Court, the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani shall
ensure his appearance and examination in the trial on the next
date fixed.
10. The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the
trial and to conclude the same within a period of 3 months from
the date of closure of examination of the defence witnesses.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…