Dharamveer Yadav @ Chuha Yadav @ Dharamveer v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21618 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2022 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== Dharamveer Yadav @ Chuha Yadav @ Dharamveer S/O Ram Nandan Yadav @ Ranjan Yadav R/O Village- Deorah (Devrah), P.S- Kako, Distt.- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S. Tr., No. 78 of 2025 arising out of Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 420 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

The prosecution case is that on the pretext of resolving a land dispute, the petitioner along with co-accused Sanjay Yadav took Dhananjay Yadav and Jitendra Yadav on motorcycles and later they were found murdered. The dead bodies were identified by the family members and recovered from Barawan Khandan. It is alleged that the murder was conspired by the local Mukhiya with the help of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21618 of 2025(4) dt.24-07-2025 2/3 and co-accused, using firearms to eliminate them and dispose of the bodies to destroy evidence.

4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 21-06-2023. Petitioner bears five criminal antecedents, as per disclosure made in paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is named in the FIR, there is no direct allegation of murder against him except the claim of last seen, and no other circumstantial evidence connects him to the crime. It has also come during investigation that both deceased were historysheeters involved in several criminal cases, and the murder appears to be a result of gang rivalry. The petitioner has already remained in custody for about 2 years, the case has merely been committed to Sessions, and charges are yet to be framed. 6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is fervently contended that during investigation it is revealed that petitioner along with other accused have committed murder of the deceased with fire arms for taking revenge in course of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21618 of 2025(4) dt.24-07-2025 3/3 panchayati with respect to land dispute. Deceased has been lastly seen with the petitioner 7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence as the same pertains to double murder and the materials available on record against the petitioner wherein it has surfaced that petitioner was last seen with the deceased, this Court at this stage is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

9.

However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T