Patna High Court
Raju Yadav @ Raju Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The bail application of the petitioner was denied.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Yadav, applied for bail in a case registered as Bahera P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025, alleging offences under Section 310(2) of the B.N.S and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR does not name him, and he contends that his implication is merely on suspicion, noting that similarly situated persons have been granted bail. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner has four prior antecedents and that confessional statements of co‑accused repeatedly identify him as a partner in the alleged dacoity. The court examined the records, observed the antecedents and the confessional material, and concluded that these factors outweigh the petitioner's claim of non‑naming in the FIR. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court emphasizing that its observations are prima facie and limited to the bail application alone.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite not being named in the FIR
- Whether prior antecedents and confessional statements of co‑accused justify denial of bail
- Whether the nature of the offences under Section 310(2) B.N.S and Section 27 Arms Act warrant refusal of bail
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- dacoity
- Arms Act
- confessional statements
- antecedents
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9993 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Raju Yadav @ Raju Kumar Yadav Son of Late Ravindra Yadav R/o Vill. -
Champa, P.S. - Arer, Dist - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Girish Chandra Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suman Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
4 05-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bahera
P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Section(s) 310(2) of the B.N.S and Section 27 of Arms
Act.
3. The allegation is that six criminals surrounded the
Scorpio of the informant with three motorcycles and committed
dacoity. The name of the petitioner transpired during
investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has been implicated in
the case merely on suspicion and there is no recovery from him
and similarly situated persons has been granted bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9993 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026
2/2
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Perused the records. No doubt the petitioner is not
named in the F.I.R. But the petitioner carries 04 antecedents and
pursuant to confessional statement of some persons even
recoveries have been made and in almost all the confessions the
petitioner has been mentioned as a partner in crime.
7. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is
hereby rejected.
8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is
prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
abhishekkr/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.