Patna High Court – Orders
Dinesh Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2025
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19152 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2019 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui
======================================================
Dinesh Yadav, S/O Puna Yadav, R/O Village- Karra, P.S- Laxmipur, District-
Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Advocate
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 25-07-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 442/2024, arising out of
Jhajha P.S. Case No. 18 of 2019, registered for the alleged
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 427, 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections ¾
of the Explosive Substance Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-
accused persons attacked the vehicle of the informant in which
his brother-in-law and co-villager were traveling. Bombs were
hurled and firing was made, killing two persons. The occurrence
took place in the background of enmity of the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19152 of 2025(5) dt.25-07-2025
2/5
other co-accused persons and it was informant who was
supposed to travel in the vehicle and under mistaken identity,
other persons were murdered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek bail from this
Court as his earlier prayer for bail was rejected by this Court
vide order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 70223 of
2024. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 07.02.2024 and till date, out of 15 witnesses,
only three witnesses have been examined, though it has been
wrongly submitted on the last date that four witnesses have been
examined in this case. Out of three witnesses, two witnesses are
said to be eye witnesses, but they did not name this petitioner
for being present at the place of occurrence or to be a participant
in the murder of aforementioned two persons. Rather the
witnesses have deposed that the petitioner was not present at the
place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. The learned
counsel further submits that the eye witnesses have though
named other co-accused persons for being involved in the
double murder and three such co-accused, namely Karu Yadav,
Prem Yadav and Rahul Kumar Rawat, have been granted bail by
different Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19152 of 2025(5) dt.25-07-2025
3/5
05.07.2022, 21.02.2023 & 22.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
78020 of 2019, Cr. Misc. No. 62022 of 2022 & Cr. Appeal (DB)
No.301 of 2024. The case of the petitioner is on much better
footing. The learned counsel further submits that from the FIR,
it is apparent that the FIR was registered by the informant at the
instance of Mamta Yadav, driver of the vehicle, which was
attacked, who has subsequently also been made accused in this
case. The learned counsel further submits that the thrust of main
allegation is against co-accused Karu Yadav, Rahul Kumar
Rawat and Ramkhelawan Yadav and even from the call details
report, presence of only these persons came to the knowledge of
the investigating agency. Thus, learned counsel submits that
after examination of eye witnesses and as there is no other eye
witness remain to be examined in this case, in the changed
circumstances, prayer for bail of the petitioner may be
considered.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes
the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned
APP submits that it is a case of double murder and a number of
witnesses are yet to be examined and the petitioner does not
deserve bail at this stage.
6. From perusal of the copy of depositions received
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19152 of 2025(5) dt.25-07-2025
4/5
from the learned trial court, it appears that the informant, who is
P.W. 2 and one of the claimed eye witnesses and P.W.3, Kuldeep
Yadav, another eye witness, did not name this petitioner before
the learned trial court for being involved in the occurrence and
considering the submission that there are no other eye witnesses
left to be examined, though a number of witnesses are yet to be
examined and also grant of bail to other similarly placed co-
accused persons, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is
allowed.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jamui/court concerned,
in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 18 of 2019, subject to
the conditions mentioned in Section 480 (3) of BNSS and also
the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative
of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each
and every date fixed by the court below.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive
dates or in violation of the terms of the bail,
the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19152 of 2025(5) dt.25-07-2025
5/5to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
U T