Patna High Court
Kailash yadav @ Kailoo yadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted to Priti Devi subject to conditions, while the withdrawn application of Kailash Yadav is rejected.
Summary
The petitioners, Kailash Yadav and Priti Devi, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving a land‑dispute‑related shooting alleged under sections 109(3)(5) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that Kailash Yadav conspired and opened fire, injuring his mother‑in‑law, while Priti Devi was present but not implicated. Kailash Yadav withdrew his bail application, leading the court to reject it, whereas the court considered the merits of Priti Devi's application. After hearing both sides, the court noted the lack of criminal antecedent against Priti Devi and the absence of any substantive role attributed to her. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to Priti Devi with stringent conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., while dismissing the withdrawn application of Kailash Yadav.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Priti Devi despite the allegations of conspiracy and involvement in the shooting.
- Whether the withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application by Kailash Yadav results in its rejection.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- land dispute
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11842 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2025 Thana- SAUR BAZAR District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Kailash yadav @ Kailoo yadav son of Nago yadav Resident Of Village-
Suhath Ps- Sour Bazar District- Saharsa
2. Priti Devi @ Priti Kumari Wife of Sudhakar yadav @ Sudhakar Kumar
Resident Of Village- Suhath Ps- Sour Bazar District- Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 06-05-2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Chandra Mohan Jha prays for and is allowed to withdraw the
anticipatory bail application of petitioner no. 1, Kailash Yadav.
2. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of
petitioner no. 1, Kailash Yadav stands rejected.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
4. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Saur Bazar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025 for the offence
registered under sections 109 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
5. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11842 of 2026(4) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
that while he was moving with his maternal grandmother (nani),
named accused due to land dispute opened fire, which resulted
into injury to her. Accordingly, the FIR.
6. As the story unfolds, the investigation reached the
doors of these petitioners (petitioner no. 1 is the son-in-law of
the injured) and the petitioner no. 2 is the wife of the informant
maternal grandson of the injured. As per the Police theory, some
land was transferred by the injured lady in the name of the
petitioner no. 1, her son in law for which though payment taken
from Ajay Yadav, it was never transferred.
7. As pressure was there on him, the petitioner no. 1
conspired and accordingly, as per the independent witnesses, he
opened fire and when the lady was injured, raised alarm
implicating the named accused persons. Some photographs were
also taken by the local villagers and one of the photograph
which has been recorded in the case diary shows that the
petitioner is armed.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a
conspiracy has been created by the accused persons as the lady
wanted to transfer her land to the only daughter and the son-in-
law (petitioner no. 1) and in continuation of that, the story has
been planted.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11842 of 2026(4) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
9. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that a perusal
of the case diary shows that how petitioner conspired and while
injuring his own mother-in-law, tried to implicate the other
innocent.
10. Having heard the parties, main allegation is
against Kailash Yadav of conspiring as also opening fire, so far
as the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, though presence has been
shown during the course of investigation, no role has been
attributed to him, his no criminal antecedent, is a lady, in that
background, this Court is inclined to grant him the anticipatory
bail with conditions.
11. Let the petitioner in the event of arrest or
surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Saharsa in connection with Saur
Bazar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025 subject to condition as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioner, who shall provide official
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11842 of 2026(4) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner 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 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 shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.