Dismissed¶21

Manish Kumar @ Bhopat Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC15 Jul 2025CR. MISC./18617/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail rejected - Patna High Court Crl. Misc. No. 18617 of 2025, order dt. 15-07-2025 (Chandra Prakash Singh, J); accused Manish Kumar @ Bhopat Yadav, Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 347 of 2023, ss. 302, 364, 506/34 IPC (murder/kidnapping of informant's son); last-seen theory urged by State; heinous nature of allegation and criminal antecedents weighed; co-accused parity (Cr. Misc. No. 30338 of 2024, dt. 26.07.2024) noted; trial court directed to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the heinous nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the bail application stands rejected. ¶21

Manish Kumar @ Bhopat Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 347 of 2023 (offences punishable u/ss 302, 364, 506 read with section 34 IPC).

¶13

Court's answer

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18617 of 2025 (oral order dated 15-07-2025), Chandra Prakash Singh, J. Regular bail application of Manish Kumar @ Bhopat Yadav (in custody since 17.12.2024) in Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 347 of 2023 dated 18.12.2023, registered u/ss 302, 364, 506 read with section 34 IPC. Prosecution alleges the petitioner and co-accused killed the informant's son: the petitioner and co-accused Abhiranjan Kumar allegedly called the deceased from his house and took him to Malhipur Diyara, where co-accused Nitish Kumar @ Bhola Yadav shot him dead; co-accused Narendra Yadav and his sons had earlier threatened the informant's family. Petitioner's counsel urged innocence, implication due to previous enmity, general and omnibus allegation, no recovery from conscious possession, and bail already granted to a similarly situated co-accused (order dated 26.07.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 30338 of 2024); four criminal antecedents disclosed. The A.P.P. opposed, invoking the last-seen theory and the specific allegation that the petitioner took the deceased with him before the shooting. Held: considering the facts and circumstances and the heinous nature of the allegations, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; application rejected; learned trial court directed to expedite the trial and conclude it at the earliest.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18617 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-347 Year-2023 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-

¶3

Begusarai

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Manish Kumar @ Bhopat Yadav S/o- Narendra Yadav Village- Chharra Patti P.S- Sahebpur kamal Dist- Begusarai

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nakul Kumar Jamuar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶9

ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 15-07-2025

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

A.P.P for the State.

¶13

2 . The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 347 of 2023 dated 18.12.2023 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 302, 364, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

3 . As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons are alleged to have killed the informant’s son. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused Abhiranjan Kumar called him from his house and took him with them to Malhipur Diyara and thereafter, the co-accused Nitish Kumar @ Bhola Yadav shot the informant’s son dead. It is

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18617 of 2025(4) dt.15-07-2025 2/3

¶16

further alleged that earlier the co-accused Narendra Yadav and his sons also threatened the informant and his family to kill.

¶17

4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity. The specific allegation of firing is against the co-accused Nitish Kumar @ Bhola Yadav. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Similarly situated coaccused has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court vide order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30338 of 2024. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2024.

¶18

5 . Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that it is a case of last seen theory. It is further stated that there is specific allegation against the petitioner is of taking the deceased with him and thereafter he was shot dead which clarifies that there is direct involvement of the petitioner in the said crime.

¶19

6 . Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18617 of 2025(4) dt.15-07-2025 3/3

¶21

petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.

¶22

7 . The Learned trial court is directed to expedite the

¶23

trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

¶24

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)