Patna High Court
Santosh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied the petition for regular bail.
Summary
Santosh Yadav and Gopal Yadav were charged under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B), Arms Act section 27 and UAPA sections 16, 18 and 20 for alleged involvement in a Maoist attack that resulted in death. They had earlier applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected on 12‑02‑2024, and were arrested on 09‑12‑2025. The petitioners sought regular bail, claiming clean antecedents and having been in custody for over a month. The State opposed, highlighting the recovery of cartridges from their house, their alleged membership in a dreaded Maoist organization, and the risk of absconding. The Court, after hearing both sides, found the seriousness of the offences and the State’s concerns sufficient to deny bail.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting regular bail to accused of serious offences after a rejected anticipatory bail application.
- Whether the presence of arms, alleged Maoist affiliation, and risk of absconding justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 302
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act — s. 16, 18, 20
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- IPC
- Arms Act
- UAPA
- Maoist
- serious offences
- risk of absconding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9922 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2019 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Santosh Yadav son of Deoke Yadav @ Deoki Yadav Resident of Village-
Barhi Bigha PS - Hunterganj Dist - Chatra Jharkhand
2. Gopal Yadav son of Sardar Yadav Resident of Village - Barahmoriya, PS-
Roshanganj, Dist- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act as
well as Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the U.A.P. Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners had earlier moved before this
Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 3339 of
2024 and the same came to be rejected vide order dated
12.02.2024 by this Court. It is further submitted that petitioners
are persons with clean antecedent and are in custody since
09.12.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9922 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
4. At this stage, learned A.P.P. for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners
and submits that the anticipatory bail application of the
petitioners was rejected on 12.02.2024 and more than 20 months
thereafter the petitioners were arrested on 09.12.2025. It is
further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioners are member of
dreaded Maoist Organization and from their house cartridges
were recovered. Further, Arvind Bhuiya, Alok Yadav and 8-10
unknown accused had called the husband of the informant and
fired indiscriminately killing him on the spot. Learned A.P.P.
next submits that the case is under the U.A.P. Act also and since
petitioners did not surrender within a reasonable time after their
anticipatory bail application was rejected and came to be
arrested 20 months thereafter that amply demonstrates the
conduct of the petitioners. It is also submitted that if the
privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioners, the
petitioners may abscond.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners is not in a position to rebut the submissions of the
learned A.P.P. that from the house of the petitioners cartridges
were recovered and it is alleged in the FIR that they belong to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9922 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
Maoist Organization.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioners on bail in
connection with Roshanganj P.S. Case No. 76 of 2019 pending
in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sherghati
at Gaya/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…