Dismissed¶23

Mantu Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Aug 2025CR. MISC./36904/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.36904 of 2025, decided 19-08-2025 by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra. Mantu Yadav v. The State of Bihar. Bail application rejected in Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 258 of 2024 (District Munger) for offences under Sections 76, 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) BNS 2023; direct allegation of fatal pati blow on the deceased's head; liberty to renew bail before the Trial Court after six months if trial not concluded; trial to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; however, liberty granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail before the Trial Court if the trial is not concluded within six months, with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial. ¶23

Mantu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36904 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2024 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- Munger

¶3

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

¶4

Mantu Yadav Son of Late Hari Yadav Resident of Village - Raikar, P.S.Sangrampur, District - Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Devika Rani, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

3 19-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶15

APP for the State.

¶16

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sangrampur P.S. Case No. 258 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 76, 103(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶17

As per FIR, this petitioner gave pati blow on the head of the informant’s husband due to which he died.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36904 of 2025(3) dt.19-08-2025 2/3

¶20

Learned counsel further submitted that there is a delay of three days in lodging the FIR without plausible explanation, which in itself, raises doubt over the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 17.02.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

¶21

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of giving pati blow on the head of the deceased due to which he died. Learned APP further submitted that the postmortem report also supports the allegation as levelled in the FIR.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also there being direct allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

¶23