Patna High Court
Vikash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the case lacks prima facie evidence linking him to the alleged extortion.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikash Yadav, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 386 and 387 of the IPC for alleged extortion related to the construction of Khaira Bridge. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons and the petitioner’s alleged involvement rests solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement without any corroborative material, such as a mobile number or payment of extortion money. The petitioner argued that the essential ingredients of extortion – intentional intimidation and dishonest inducement – were absent, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dhananjay v. State of Bihar. The State opposed bail, but the court found no prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the offence and noted the lack of independent corroboration. Consequently, the court ordered the petitioner’s release on pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and sureties under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with a condition to verify his criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted when the FIR is against unknown persons and there is no material linking the petitioner to the alleged offence.
- Whether the essential ingredients of Sections 386 and 387 IPC – intentional intimidation and dishonest inducement – are satisfied in the present facts.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused, without independent corroboration, is sufficient ground for arrest.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the BNSS permits the grant of pre‑arrest bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 386, 387
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- extortion
- IPC sections 386 387
- confessional statement
- lack of evidence
- Section 482
- BNSS
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13102 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2023 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya
======================================================
Vikash Yadav Son of Horil Yadav R/o Village - Laxchan Bigha, P.S. - Konch,
Dist. - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 04-05-2026 Heard Mr. Aryan Singh, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Narsingh Tanti, learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Konch P.S. Case No. 57/2023 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Sections 386,387 of the IPC.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, during
construction of Khaira Bridge, the informant received an
extortion demand through a letter and subsequent threatening
calls, with reference to prior similar incidents at the site, and on
such suspicion, the F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown
persons.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13102 of 2026(3) dt.04-05-2026
2/4
in the present case. The F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown
persons and no material has surfaced during investigation
connecting the petitioner with the alleged demand of extortion,
particularly no evidence to show that any mobile number
belonging to the petitioner was used. Learned counsel further
submitted that no extortion amount has been paid and thus the
essential ingredients of Sections 386 and 387 IPC are not
attracted. Learned counsel placing reliance upon the judgment
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay v. State of
Bihar, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 768, submitted that to
constitute an offence of extortion, it must be shown that the
accused intentionally put a person in fear of injury and thereby
dishonestly induced delivery of property. In the present case, no
such inducement has taken place. Even the suspicion raised in
the F.I.R. is based on earlier occurrences in which the petitioner
was not an accused. The implication of the petitioner is solely
based on the confessional statement of a co-accused, which has
no evidentiary value in absence of corroboration. On these
grounds, the petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13102 of 2026(3) dt.04-05-2026
3/4
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the FIR it appears that the F.I.R. has been instituted against
unknown persons and the implication of the petitioner has
surfaced only during investigation without any substantive
material connecting him to the alleged offence. No material has
been brought on record to show that the petitioner was involved
in making any demand of extortion through letter or mobile
communication. In case of Dhananjay (supra), it is evident that
the offence of extortion requires intentional putting of a person
in fear and consequent dishonest inducement for delivery of
property. In the present case, admittedly no extortion amount
has been paid, and prima facie the essential ingredients of the
offence are not satisfied. The implication of the petitioner
appears to be primarily based on the confessional statement of a
co-accused, which, in absence of independent corroboration,
carries limited evidentiary value at this stage. I am of the
opinion that petitioner has, prima facie, made out a case to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13102 of 2026(3) dt.04-05-2026
4/4
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is
pending / Concerned Court in connection with Konch P.S. Case
No. 57/2023, 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 petitioner and if it is found
that the petitioner is 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)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.