Patna High Court

Sanni Yadav @ Sanny Deol KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanni Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under IPC sections 302, 201, 34 and 120B, alleging that he was falsely implicated in the murder of an informant's son. The prosecution contended that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, had taken the victim to a marriage ceremony and subsequently murdered him. The petitioner argued that no specific overt act was attributed to him, that the informant was not an eye‑witness, and that he had no criminal antecedents. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific allegation against the petitioner and noting that anticipatory bail had already been denied to co‑accused. The High Court, after considering the gravity of the offences and the allegations, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to surrender before the lower court and apply for regular bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR and the nature of the offences alleged.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 201, 302, 34

Subjects

anticipatory bail
murder
IPC
criminal procedure
false implication
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12041 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2024 Thana- NAUHATTA District- Saharsa
                 ======================================================
                 Sanni Yadav @ Sanny Deol Kumar S/O Sushil yadav Village- Bharagama, Ps-
                 Bheja, District- Madhubani


                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar


                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-02-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Nauhatta P.S.

                   Case No. 126 of 2024, registered under Sections 302, 201, 34 ad

                   120B of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. The prosecution case, in short, is that accused

                   persons came to the house of the informant and took his son to

                   attend the marriage ceremony of the petitioner. The informant

                   suspects that accused persons including the petitioner have

                   committed murder of his son.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12041 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                            2/3




          present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted

          that no specific overt act has been attributed against the

          petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. It is

          next submitted that the informant is not an eye witness to the

          alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the deceased

          went to attend the marriage ceremony of the petitioner due to

          which he has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner

          has got no criminal antecedent.

                       5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

          the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that

          the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation

          of committing murder of informant’s son against the petitioner

          along with other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that

          the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to other co-accused

          person has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated

          27.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9999 of 2025. Hence, the

          petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not

          inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                       7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is

          directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12041 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall

                       consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being

                       prejudiced by this order.



                                                                   (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-

U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…