Awadhesh Yadav @ Awadhesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15448 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-586 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Awadhesh Yadav @ Awadhesh Kumar, aged about 70 years (Male), Son of Late Ragho Yadav, Resident of Village -Gangapur Bigha, Police StationWena (Chandi) District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13841 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-586 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Rekha Devi, Female, aged 35 years, W/o- Sudhir Yadav, R/o Gangabridge, P.S. - Wena, Dist. - Nalanda, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 15448 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13841 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Informant, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary as well as postmortem report of the deceased.
2. The petitioners are in custody in a case registered
2/4 for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 103(1), 238(b), 3 and (5) of the BNS and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26(1) and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is alleged that on 11.10. 2025, a day before the incident, around 3 pm Sarita Devi (wife of the informant) was called by Rekha Devi (petitioner no.2) in lieu of some work related to Jeevika Samuh and on the next day, i.e., 12.10.2025, the informant, namely, Ramparvesh Yadav reached near Koyal Bigha Road (District- Nalanda) and identified the dead body of his wife, namely, Sarita Devi who was gun shot near the temporal region (Kanpatti) by both the petitioners and another co-accused namely, Sudhir Yadav (husband of petitioner no.2). It is further alleged that the motive behind the murder of the wife of the informant, namely, Sarita Devi was not to repay the loan amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- only which were borrowed by Rekha Devi (Petitioner No. 2) from the deceased i.e., Sarita Devi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. He next submits that no cogent material has come against them and the used country made pistol has been recovered from the store chips of the house of one Sudhir Yadav (husband of
3/4 Rekha Devi) and petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition and both the petitioners are in custody since 20.10.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that both the petitioners shot and killed the wife of the informant, namely, Sarita Devi and used country made katta which has been recovered from the possession of petitioner, namely, Awadhesh Yadav.
6. On perusal of the first information report, case diary, postmortem report of the deceased as well as impugned order dated 21.01.2026, it appears that both the petitioners are named in the FIR and from perusal of the case diary in paragraph nos. 78 and 80, it appears that both the petitioners shot and killed the wife of the informant, namely, Sarita Devi and the allegation is very serious and also mentions in the case diary that blood stained cloth and used country made pistol were recovered from the possession of petitioner, namely, Awadhesh Yadav and the postmortem report of deceased, namely, Sarita Devi states that she died due to multiple injuries caused by a firearm and also the fact that the investigation is still pending and from perusal of the case diary, it appears that several
4/4 witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, so I am not inclined to grant bail to the above named both petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of above named both petitioners is hereby rejected.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T