← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./80385/2025bail rejected

Subodh Yadav @ Subodh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-06Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79920 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== Lalo Yadav Son of Late Bauan Yadav R/o Village- Bahera, Ward No. 2, P.S.- Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 80385 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== Subodh Yadav @ Subodh Kumar Yadav Son of Sri Deepnarayan Das @ Deepnarayan Yadav @ Dipnarayan Yadav R/o Village - Dhurgaonw, Ward no. 07, P.S. - Bharrahi, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 79920 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 80385 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Surya Narayan Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the case diary. 2.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025 registered for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79920 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026 2/3 offences punishable under Section 103, 3(5) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

The informant's elder brother, a teacher at Utkramit High School, was shot dead after leaving for school. The deceased had ongoing disputes with Headmaster Ram Chandra Paswan, including a recent altercation over indecent remarks towards a female teacher, and had expressed fear of being killed. The informant suspects the Headmaster, along with adversaries Ganga Prasad Yadav, Shivdhari, and Pappu Yadav, of conspiring in the crime.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged against them and have falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners are not named in the FIR. Names of the petitioners have surfaced in this case during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except suspicion, there is no material against the petitioners. It is submitted that even the CDR report also does not confirm about the connectivity of one accused to another accused. Petitioners were not even put on T.I. Parade to ascertain their complicity in the alleged occurrence. Petitioners are languishing in custody since 25.03.2025 and petitioner, namely, Lalo Yadav bears four

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79920 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026 3/3 criminal antecedents, whereas, petitioner, namely, Subodh Yadav @ Subodh Kumar Yadav bears one criminal antecedent. 5.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners in their confessional statement has confessed their guilt and have very categorically stated the manner in which alleged occurrence took place, which fact finds figure in paragraph No. 127 of the case diary. 6.

Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Prayer for grant of bail is hereby rejected. 7.

However, petitioners will be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail in the Court below, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

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