Patna High Court
Mandhata Yadav @ Amarjeet YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the accusations are specific, direct, and involve serious offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Mandhata Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging he caused firearm injury to an informant. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner directly inflicted the injury, naming him in the FIR. The petitioner contended he was innocent, falsely implicated due to a prior land dispute, and possessed a clean record. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusation and seriousness of the offences. After considering the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the charges, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of specific accusation and gravity of offences.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- firearm injury
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- B.N.S.
- Arms Act
- land dispute
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1072 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2025 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Mandhata Yadav @ Amarjeet Yadav S/O Tapeshwar Yadav Resident of
Village- Dewanpur Ward No. 11, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2),
126(2), 109(1), 61(2), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner caused fire arm injury to the informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
this case due to previous land dispute. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1072 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/2
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
with specific accusation that he caused fire arm injury to the
informant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…