Patna High Court
Mukesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The appeal is allowed and bail is granted to the appellant with conditions, setting aside the lower court’s refusal.
Summary
Mukesh Yadav was charged under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for allegedly assaulting the parents of an informant with an axe, rod and sticks on 5 December 2025. He sought regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but the trial court refused bail. The appellant contended that he had a clean antecedent, that the allegations against him were vague and omnibus, and that the specific assault was attributed to co‑accused. The State and the second respondent opposed bail, asserting his participation in the crime. The Patna High Court, after considering the circumstances and the period of custody, set aside the trial court’s order, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 14(A)(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code despite the nature of the offences charged.
- Whether the allegations against the appellant are sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 329(4), 332(a), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 14(A)(2)
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act
- assault
- regular bail
- appeal
- criminal antecedent
- court order set aside
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1167 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2025 Thana- PUNAURA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Mukesh Yadav S/O Late Ramu Yadav R/O Village- Veerta Tola Punaura,
Ward No. 6, P.S- Punaura, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vishwanath Baitha S/O Brahmdev Baitha R/O Village- Veerta Tola Punaura,
Ward No. 6, P.S- Punaura, Distt.- Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP
For the Resp No.2 : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-07-2026 Heard Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as well as
Mr. Binay Krishna, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against
refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 20.02.2026
passed by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Spl. Judge (SC/ST(POA) Act), Sitamarhi in connection
with Punaura P.S. Case No. 248 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
07.12.2025 registered under Sections 303(2), 329(4), 332(a),
191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 of the Bharatiya
Nyay Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1167 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
2/4
and Scheduled Tribes Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, the informant
alleged that on 05.12.2025 at about 11.00 P.M, the appellant
along with other accused persons entered his house and
assaulted his parents by means of axe, rod and sticks and
demanded money allegedly received from land sale.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is
no specific allegation of assault or overt act against this
appellant rather the allegation against him are general and
omnibus in nature. He next submits that specific allegation of
assault is against co-accused, Mukesh Yadav and Anil Yadav
that they have assaulted the father and mother of the informant
and both received injury but it appears that the injury of one
person is simple in nature and another one is grievous in nature.
He further submits that the police, after investigation, submitted
charge sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in custody
since 29.01.2026.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor
for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1167 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
3/4
appellant and submit that appellant has participated in the
present crime in question.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
as well as period of custody of the appellant, let the appellant,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Court of 1st Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge (SC/ST(POA) Act), Sitamarhi in
connection with Punaura P.S. Case No. 248 of 2025, with other
following conditions:-
i. Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at
any stage it is found that the appellant have concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1167 of 2026(4) dt.02-07-2026
4/4
cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and
this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.