Dismissed¶24

Tirpeet Narayan Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC7 Aug 2025CR. MISC./22176/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejection; assault with iron pipe on head causing death; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 75, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5); Bheja P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024; District Madhubani; CR. MISC. No.22176 of 2025; 'order giver' contention; delay of 8-9 days in FIR; injured witnesses; judicial custody since 22.11.2024; six criminal antecedents; direction to conclude trial preferably within six months; liberty to renew bail prayer; Patna High Court; Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.; order dated 07-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; trial court directed to expedite and conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, failing which the petitioner may renew his bail prayer before the court below. ¶24

Tirpeet Narayan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused of assaulting the informant with an iron pipe on his head causing death, should be granted bail in Bheja P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024.

¶14

Court's answer

Though the F.I.R. alleged the petitioner was an 'order giver', several injured witnesses stated that the petitioner assaulted the informant by means of an iron pipe upon his head, due to which he succumbed to the injury.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Having heard counsel and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Key takeaways

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected, with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within six months.ratio¶24
If the trial is not concluded within six months as stated, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his bail prayer before the court below.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected — Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.) declined bail to Tirpeet Narayan Yadav in Bheja P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024 (Dist. Madhubani) for offences under Sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 75, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2) and Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution case alleged the petitioner assaulted the informant with an iron pipe on his head, causing death. Rejecting the defence pleas that the petitioner was merely an 'order giver', that the F.I.R. (nine named and fifty unknown accused) was delayed by 8-9 days without explanation, and that death resulted from wrong treatment/operation at a private hospital, the Court noted that several injured witnesses attributed the fatal iron-pipe assault to the petitioner. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, bail was refused; the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, failing which the petitioner may renew his bail prayer before the court below.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22176 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2024 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

Tirpeet Narayan Yadav Son of Late Laxman Yadav Resident of Village - Darah Navtoliya, P.S. - Bheja, District - Madhubani

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP For the Informant : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶10

ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 07-08-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State as also learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the case diary.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bheja P.S. Case No. 104 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 75, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2) and Section 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

As per prosecution case, the accusation against the petitioner is of assaulting the informant with iron pipe on his head causing serious injury which ultimately resulted into his death.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22176 of 2025(4) dt.07-08-2025 2/3

¶18

petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to dirty village politics and old enmities. He further submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged against nine named accused persons and fifty unknown persons. He further submits that there is delay of 8-9 days in lodging the F.I.R. that too without there being any plausible explanation for the same which creates doubt in the veracity of the prosecution case. He further submits that the Informant in his written report has alleged that Sunil Kumar Yadav has assaulted on his head by spade/kudal due to which he sustained head injury but, the doctor has found the nature of injuries as simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. He further submits that the deceased has died due to wrong treatments/operation conducted by the doctors at private hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is only the order giver. The petitioner has six criminal antecedents and, in all of them, he is on bail and is languishing in judicial custody since 22.11.2024 without any rhymes or reason.

¶19

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that the offence alleged is serious in

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22176 of 2025(4) dt.07-08-2025 3/3

¶21

nature.

¶22

From perusal of records, it appears that though in the F.I.R., there is an allegation against the petitioner of being an order giver but, from perusal of the records, it appears that several injured witnesses have stated that the petitioner has assaulted the informant by means of iron pipe upon his head due to which he succumbed to the injury.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, above named, is rejected with a direction to the court below to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from today. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months as stated above, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer before the court below.

¶25

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶26

rishi/-

Tirpeet Narayan Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tirpeet Narayan Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Mahboob Vs The State of Bihar

Bajrangi Paswan @ Surendra Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Sunal Kumar @ Bhagat Kumar @ Bhagat Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Lakh Pati Devi @ Sonam Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Gopal Singh Vs The State of Bihar