Patna High Court
Pappu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Pappu Yadav as withdrawn and granted anticipatory bail to Sudha Devi subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Pappu Yadav and his wife Sudha Devi, were implicated in a complaint (Case No. 318 of 2020) alleging offences under IPC sections 420, 120(B), 467 and 468 relating to alleged land fraud and criminal conspiracy. Pappu Yadav sought anticipatory bail but later withdrew his application, leading the court to dismiss it as withdrawn. Sudha Devi, fearing arrest, applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the main accusation was against her husband and that she would cooperate with the investigation. The State opposed, noting her name also appears in the complaint. Considering the circumstances, the court granted Sudha Devi anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions regarding sureties, appearance before the trial court, non‑tampering with witnesses, and refraining from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Sudha Devi despite the allegations under IPC sections 420, 120(B), 467 and 468.
- Whether the withdrawal of Pappu Yadav's anticipatory bail application warrants dismissal of his application.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- section 420
- section 120(B)
- section 467
- section 468
- bail conditions
- withdrawal of application
- gender considerations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12937 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2020 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - JHANJHARPUR
District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Pappu Yadav S/o Mahesh Prasad Yadav R/o Village - Lakhnaur, Tole -
Belahi, P.S - Lakhnaur, District - Madhubani
2. Sudha Devi W/o Pappu Yadav R/o Village - Lakhnaur, Tole - Belahi, P.S -
Lakhnaur, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Rajiv Ranjan S/o Shri Mahesh Prasad Yadav R/o Village - Lakhnaur, Tole -
Belhi, P.S - Lakhnaur, District - Madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is
allowed to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with regard
to petitioner no. 1, Pappu Yadav.
2. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application with
regard to petitioner no. 1, Pappu Yadav stands dismissed as
withdrawn.
3. Heard the parties.
4. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Complaint Case No. 318 of 2020 for the offence
under sections 420, 120(B), 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code
lodged by the complainant, Rajiv Ranjan.
3. As per the complaint, the allegation is that his elder
brother partitioned himself during the lifetime of the father and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12937 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/3
was living separately. Later, he alongwith his wife under criminal
conspiracy, executed the land belonging to the complainant. The
persons who appeared as witnesses were also made accused. This
led to the complaint/FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even
going by the complaint/FIR it would show that the main allegation
is against Pappu Yadav (petitioner no. 1), the brother of the
complainant and only to put pressure, the wife has also been
implicated. Further paragraph-3 relating to criminal antecedent has
been filed by her brother-in-law (Devar) and father-in-law (Sasur)
and if granted bail, she shall be diligently appearing in
trial/investigation.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that her
name has also come in the complaint.
6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as
also that the petitioner is a lady, main role has been assigned to her
husband, Pappu Yadav and an undertaking has been given that she
will be diligently appearing in trial/investigation, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend her the privilege of
anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12937 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/3
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1 st Class,
Jhanjharpur, Madhubani in connection with Complaint Case No.
318 of 2020 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi who shall
provide official document (Aadhaar Card/Voter ID Card/Pan
Card/Driving License) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi shall appear on each
and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation
of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi shall in no way try
to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the
evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps
for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi shall desist from
committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State
shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of her bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…