Rajo Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

Rajo Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail prayer rejected; however, petitioner given liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below if the trial is not concluded within six months from the date of receipt/production of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No. 434 of 2025, instituted for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence.

Ratio / Principle

The bail prayer is rejected, and the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

Key takeaways

If the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of the order, the petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Rejected — Patna High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.), Cr. Misc. No. 13167 of 2026, decided 14-07-2026, arising out of KAUWAKOL (Kawakole) P.S. Case No. 434 of 2025, District Nawada. Regular-bail prayer of Rajo Yadav, accused under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, rejected. Prosecution case: petitioner along with co-accused persons assaulted the informant and her husband, causing the husband's death. State and informant opposed bail, pointing to at least four fractures suffered by the informant and multiple injuries on the dead body of the deceased, and to a co-ordinate Bench's earlier rejection of a co-accused's bail (order dated 28.04.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 10795 of 2026). Petitioner in custody since 09.12.2025 with one criminal antecedent; defence pleaded innocence/false implication, no recovery from conscious possession, general-and-omnibus nature of allegation, and a land dispute between agnate parties. Court declined bail 'considering ... nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence'; trial Court directed to expedite trial; failing conclusion within six months of receipt/production of the order, petitioner may renew the bail prayer before the Court below.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13167 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2025 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada

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

Rajo Yadav Son of Lalo Yadav Resident Of Village - Madhurapur, P.S. - Kawakole, District – Nawada.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

ORAL ORDER

7 14-07-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused the case diary.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No. 434 of 2025, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the informant and her husband due to which husband of the informant has died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13167 of 2026(7) dt.14-07-2026 2/3

present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. The alleged occurrence took place due to land dispute between the parties. It is further submitted that both the parties are agnates. The petitioner is in custody since 09.12.2025 and has got one criminal antecedent.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the informant has suffered at least four fractures and number of injuries have been found on the dead body of the deceased. Learned APP for the State further submits that regular bail of co-accused has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10795 of 2026.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13167 of 2026(7) dt.14-07-2026 3/3

petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the Court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

Rajorshi/-

U T