Patna High Court
Mukesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioners’ clean antecedents and the possibility that the injury was accidental and in self‑defence, they are entitled to pre‑arrest bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Mukesh Yadav and Bablu Yadav, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (PS‑1006/2025) alleging assault on an informant under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code. They claimed the incident arose from a long‑standing dispute and that any injury caused was accidental and in self‑defence, emphasizing their clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the FIR, the nature of the injuries, and the petitioners’ antecedents, concluding that there was no strong prima facie case to deny bail. Consequently, the court ordered their release on pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and sureties, with a directive to the district court to verify any other criminal cases against them.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bihar Penal Code.
- Whether the alleged assault, being simple in nature and possibly committed in self‑defence, negates the necessity of pre‑arrest detention.
- Whether the petitioners’ clean antecedents justify the grant of bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- self‑defence
- assault
- clean antecedents
- Section 482(2) of the Bihar Criminal Procedure Code
- bail bond
- case and counter‑case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11610 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1006 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad
======================================================
1. Mukesh Yadav, aged about 40 years, Male, S/o Late Peyare Yadav R/o
Village- Milki Mataur, PS- Tehta, District- Jehanabad, Bihar
2. Bablu Yadav, aged about 38 years, Male, S/o Late Peyare Yadav R/o
Village- Milki Mataur, PS- Tehta, District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Anita Kumari, APP
For the informant : Mr. Gaurang Darshan Dixit, Advocate
Mr. Arun Bharti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Anita Kumari, learned APP
for the State and Mr. Gaurang Darshan Dixit and Mr. Arun
Bharti, learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in
connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No.
1006/2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under
Sections126(2),115(2),117(2),118(1),109(1),351(2),352,351
(3) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused
persons named therein including the petitioners have assaulted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11610 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
the informant by means of rod and lathi, causing injury to her.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in the present case. There is case and
counter case between the parties and due to previous enmity, an
altercation took place and both the sides sustained injury. The
petitioners in their self-defence, may have caused some injury
on the person of the informant without intention. The injury
sustained on the person of the informant has been found to be
simple in nature. Petitioners have clean antecedents. On these
grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP
for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-
arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR and also the fact that there is case and counter
case between the parties and due to some dispute, an altercation
took place and both the sides entered into fierce fight and in the
self-defence, petitioners may have caused some injury on the
person of the informant without intention. I am of the opinion
that petitioners, who are having clean antecedents, have, prima
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11610 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-I, Jehanabad /
Concerned Court in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S.
Case No. 1006/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found
that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as
what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail
application, this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…