Patna High Court
Mithlesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithilesh KUmarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to Karu Yadav and Mahendra Yadav as they were not the principal assailants, but denied bail to Mithilesh Yadav who was the main perpetrator.
Summary
The petitioners Karu Yadav and Mahendra Yadav sought anticipatory bail in connection with a family land dispute that escalated into a violent incident where the informant’s husband was shot. The FIR alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that the petitioners had a common intention to kill. The court examined the role of each accused, noting that the actual shooting was carried out by Mithilesh Yadav, who received the pistol and fired the fatal shot. Considering that Karu and Mahendra Yadav only restrained the victim and did not fire, the court granted them anticipatory bail subject to conditions. Conversely, because Mithilesh Yadav was identified as the principal assailant, his application for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to accused who participated in a violent incident but did not fire the weapon
- Whether the doctrine of common intention applies to all the petitioners in the FIR
- Whether the nature of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Arms Act justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- common intention
- arms act
- family land dispute
- principal assailant
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3891 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2025 Thana- SARE District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Karu Yadav S/o Late Dwarika Yadav R/o Village- Gilani, PS- Sare, Distt-
Nalanda
2. Mahendra Yadav @ Abhishek Yadav @ Abhishek Kumar S/o Karu Yadav
R/o Village- Gilani, PS- Sare, Distt- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12466 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2025 Thana- SARE District- Nalanda
======================================================
Mithlesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithilesh KUmar
Son of Karu Yadav R/o Village - Gilani, P.S. - Sare, Distt. - Nalanda at
Biharsharif.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3891 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Niranjanm Kumar, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 12466 of 2026)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sonu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Niranjanm Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
6 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3891 of 2026(6) dt.06-05-2026
2/5
with Sare P.S. case no. 122 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1) and
3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. As per the First Information Report, on 26.08.2025,
a Panchayati was going on between the informant’s father-in-
law and her cousin father-in-law in front of the villagers. In the
meanwhile, the side of the petitioners started abusing and
assaulting the informant’s side. Petitioner No. 1, namely, Karu
Yadav (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 3891 of 2026) caught hold of
the informant’s husband, Sube Lal Yadav, from behind, and
petitioner No. 2, namely Mahendra Yadav (petitioner in Cr.
Misc. No. 3891 of 2026), ordered his younger brother to fire
upon the informant’s husband. Thereafter, the wife of Mithilesh
Yadav (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12466 of 2026) handed over a
country-made pistol to Mithilesh Yadav, who fired upon the
informant’s husband, causing gunshot injury in the chest of her
husband.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
both the parties are closely related and co-sharers. There is
previous land dispute between them. Both the parties are
residing in the same ancestral house, and during course of
discussion relating to the land dispute, it was Mithilesh Yadav
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3891 of 2026(6) dt.06-05-2026
3/5
(petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12466 of 2026), who fired upon the
informant’s husband. Due to the previous dispute, the entire
family members have been made accused in the present case,
and the only allegation against Karu Yadav and Mahendra
Yadav is that they caught hold of the informant’s husband and
ordered him to be killed, respectively. The petitioner Nos. 1 and
2, namely, Karu Yadav and Mahendra Yadav (petitioners in Cr.
Misc. No. 3891 of 2026), are not the assailants, and as per the
FIR, the assailant is Mithilesh Yadav (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.
12466 of 2026).
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and submits that all the petitioners,
namely, Karu Yadav, petitioner no. 1 and Mahendra Yadav,
petitioner no. 2 (petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 3891 of 2026), and
petitioner, namely, Mithilesh Yadav (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No.
12466 of 2026), with common intention, caught hold of the
informant’s husband and ordered him to be killed, upon which
petitioner Mithilesh Yadav, fired upon the informant’s husband.
Petitioner No. 1, Karu Yadav (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12466
of 2026), is having criminal antecedents of three cases.
6. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the injured informant’s husband, Sube Lal Yadav, who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3891 of 2026(6) dt.06-05-2026
4/5
sustained bullet injury, is having 11 criminal antecedents, and
the cases against petitioner no. 1, namely, Karu Yadav and Sube
Lal Yadav are related to family disputes between them and land
disputes among the village people.
7. Regards being had to the submissions made on
behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of
allegations against Karu Yadav and Mahendra Yadav
(petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 3891 of 2026), I am inclined to
grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, namely,
Karu Yadav and Mahendra Yadav.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed with respect to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely,
Karu Yadav and Mahendra Yadav (petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.
3891 of 2026).
9. Let the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 , namely, Karu
Yadav and Mahendra yadav (petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 3891
of 2026), above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-Xth, Nalanda,
Biharsharif, in connection with Sare Police Station Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3891 of 2026(6) dt.06-05-2026
5/5
122 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section
482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
10. However, considering the nature of the allegation
against Mithilesh Yadav and he is the main assailant, I am not
inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner,
namely, Mithilesh Yadav (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12466 of
2026).
11. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected with respect to petitioner, namely, Mithilesh Yadav
(petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 12466 of 2026).
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
Siwani/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.