Dismissed¶23

Manish Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Dec 2025CR. MISC./40250/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court | Chandra Shekhar Jha, J | Order dt. 11-12-2025 | Cr. Misc. Nos. 38882 & 40250 of 2025 (common order) | Bail rejected in Manjhi P.S. Case No. 73/2025, Saran | Offences: BNS 2023 ss. 103, 109, 127, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5); Arms Act ss. 25(1-B)A/26/35 and 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 | FIR based on deceased's telephonic information soon before death implicating accused; postmortem: firearm injury | Accused in custody since 05.03.2025 | Trial progressing (approx. 7 of 11 witnesses examined since Aug 2025) | Trials to be concluded within 4 months, else bail prayer renewable.

What did the court decide?

Bail refused in both matters. As a consequential direction, the learned trial court is to conclude the trial positively within four months, failing which the petitioner(s) are at liberty to renew their prayer of bail. ¶23

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether bail should be granted to petitioner Vijay Yadav in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 73/2025 (offences under Sections 103, 109, 127, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/35 of Arms Act). +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Grounds weighed in Cr. Misc. No. 38882 of 2025: the FIR is based on information supplied by the deceased himself over telephone, suggesting active involvement of petitioner Vijay Yadav in the crime, coupled with satisfactory progress of trial.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

On those considerations, the prayer of bail of petitioner Vijay Yadav stands rejected for the present.

¶23

Key takeaways

Consequential direction in Cr. Misc. No. 38882 of 2025: as petitioner remains in custody since 05.03.2025, the trial court is to conclude the trial positively within four months, failing which the petitioner may renew his bail prayer.ratio¶24
Grounds weighed in Cr. Misc. No. 40250 of 2025: the FIR is based on information supplied by the deceased himself over telephone, suggesting active involvement of petitioners Manish Yadav and Rahul Yadav in the crime, coupled with satisfactory progress of trial.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail rejected (oral order, Chandra Shekhar Jha, J, Patna High Court, 11-12-2025) in Cr. Misc. Nos. 38882 and 40250 of 2025 arising from Manjhi P.S. Case No. 73/2025 (District Saran) — alleged murder of the informant's uncle by firearm injuries on 02.03.2025 at about 10:00 PM while returning from a marriage party; charges under Sections 103, 109, 127, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/35 (Cr. Misc. 38882/2025) or 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 (Cr. Misc. 40250/2025) of the Arms Act. FIR founded on information supplied by the deceased himself over telephone soon before death, suggesting active involvement of the accused along with five other named persons, one of whom fired fatally; postmortem attributed death to firearm injury. Accused named in FIR and in custody since 05.03.2025; informant not an eye-witness and firing allegation not specifically levelled against these accused, per defence. Trial progressing satisfactorily — almost seven of eleven chargesheeted witnesses examined since August, 2025. Prayers of bail rejected for the present; trial court directed to conclude trials positively within four months, failing which the petitioner(s) may renew their bail prayers.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38882 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran

¶3

====================================================== Vijay Yadav, S/o Late Mathura Yadav, R/o vill - Mubarakpur, PS- Manjhi, District- Saran at Chhapra, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

¶4

with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40250 of 2025

¶5

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran

¶6

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

¶7

1. Manish Yadav S/o Akshay Lal Yadav, R/o Narwan Tola, PS- Manjhi, District- Saran at Chhapra.

¶8

Rahul Yadav S/o Late Dinesh Yadav R/o Mubarakpur, P.s.- Manjhi, Distt.Saran at Chhapra.

¶9

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 38882 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Apurv Harsh, Advocate Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate Mr. Hritik Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40250 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Apurv Harsh, Advocate Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate Mr. Hritik Anand, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandye, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶10

6 11-12-2025

¶11

Cr. Misc. No. 38882 of 2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶13

petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 73/2025 registered for the offence under Sections 103, 109, 127, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38882 of 2025(6) dt.11-12-2025 2/5

¶16

Sections 25(1-B)A/26/35 of Arms Act.

¶17

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 05.03.2025.

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is to commit murder of uncle of the informant by causing firearm injuries on 02.03.2025 at about 10:00 PM while his uncle was returning after attending marriage party from a nearby village.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. It is pointed out that the allegation of firing is not available against this petitioner. It is submitted that still the matter is at stage of prosecution evidence and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.

¶20

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that it is the deceased who informed soon before death over telephone to the informant qua involvement of petitioner in the occurrence alongwith other five named persons, out of whom, one opened fire upon him, which proved fatal. It is submitted that as per postmortem report, death of uncle of the informant was caused due to firearm injury. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing for the informant that the progress of

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38882 of 2025(6) dt.11-12-2025 3/5

¶22

trial is satisfactory and since August, 2025 almost seven chargesheeted witnesses were examined by the learned trial court out of eleven and, therefore, the trial is likely to conclude in near future. It is also pointed out that this petitioner found involved in two more criminal cases of similar nature. Taking a contrary note, it is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in both criminal cases, the petitioner is on bail.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as the FIR which is based upon the information supplied by deceased himself over telephone, suggesting active involvement of this petitioner with crime in question, coupled with the fact that progress of trial also appears satisfactory as discussed aforesaid, accordingly, the prayer of bail of petitioner stands rejected for the present.

¶24

As petitioner remains in custody since 05.03.2025, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial, positively within four months, failing which the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer of bail, if so advised.

¶25

Cr. Misc. No. 40250 of 2025

¶26

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

¶27

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Manjhi

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38882 of 2025(6) dt.11-12-2025 4/5

¶29

P.S. Case No. 73/2025 registered for the offence under Sections 103, 109, 127, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of Arms Act.

¶30

The accused/petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and are in custody since 05.03.2025.

¶31

The allegation against the petitioners is to commit murder of uncle of the informant by causing firearm injuries on 02.03.2025 at about 10:00 PM while his uncle was returning after attending marriage party from a nearby village.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. It is pointed out that the allegation of firing is not available against these petitioners. It is submitted that still the matter is at stage of prosecution evidence and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future.

¶33

Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that it is the deceased who informed soon before death over telephone to the informant qua involvement of petitioners in the occurrence alongwith other five named persons, out of whom, one opened fire upon him, which proved fatal. It is submitted that as per postmortem report, death of uncle of the

¶34

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38882 of 2025(6) dt.11-12-2025 5/5

¶35

informant was caused due to firearm injury. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing for the informant that the progress of trial is satisfactory and since August, 2025 almost seven chargesheeted witnesses were examined by the learned trial court out of eleven and, therefore, the trial is likely to conclude in near future.

¶36

Considering the aforesaid factual submissions and by taking note of fact as the FIR which is based upon the information supplied by deceased himself over telephone, suggesting active involvement of these petitioners with crime in question, coupled with the fact that progress of trial also appears satisfactory as discussed aforesaid, accordingly, the prayer of bail of petitioners stand rejected for the present.

¶37

As petitioners remain in custody since 05.03.2025, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial, positively within four months, failing which the petitioners is at liberty to renew their prayer of bail, if so advised.

¶38

veena/-

¶39

U T

¶40

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)

Manish Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish 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

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Varan Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Suraj Murmu Vs The State of Bihar