Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10145/2026bail rejected

Indradeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-03Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10145 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2019 Thana- ROSHANGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Indradeo Yadav, S/o Goverdhan Yadav R/o Village - Barahmoriya, P.S - Raushanganj, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 18, 20 of UAPA Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in sum and substance the allegation is that from the house of Santosh and Gopal cartridges were recovered and Arvind along with Alok and 8-10 other unknown accused had called the husband of the informant and fired indiscriminately killing him on the spot.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10145 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 confessional statement of Santosh Yadav in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that petitioner is in custody since 29.09.2025

5. Learned A.P.P. Sri Rabindra Kumar opposes the regular bail application and submits that petitioner is a Member of Maoist Organization and the case is under UAPA Act and petitioner also has antecedent of three cases, as such, if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence. It is also submitted that the case is of the Year 2019 and the petitioner was apprehended in September, 2025, which amply demonstrates that petitioner was evading the law for more than five years.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T