Patna High Court
Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the stipulated bond and conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, four Yadavs from Satanpatti, were accused of multiple offences under the IPC, including assault and attempt to murder, arising from an incident where Birendra Yadav allegedly assaulted two individuals. They applied for anticipatory bail after the district court rejected their earlier application, arguing they have clean antecedents and that the investigating officer never deemed arrest necessary, only issuing a Section 41A notice. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the charges. The High Court considered whether anticipatory bail was appropriate despite the filing of a charge‑sheet and found no risk of absconding or tampering. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S., allowing cancellation if the petitioners delay the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the police have not arrested the accused but a charge‑sheet has been filed.
- Whether the petitioners pose a risk of absconding or of delaying the trial.
- Whether the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are applicable.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41A, 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 307, 323, 34, 341, 380, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC offences
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 41A CrPC
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
- Bihar High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15028 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2021 Thana- RATANPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
1. Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Kumar Yadav S/o Bhola Prasad Yadav @ Bhola
Yadav Resident of village - Satanpatti, Police Station - Ratanpura, District -
Supaul
2. Mithilesh Kumar @ Mithu @ Mithun Yadav S/o Rajendra Yadav Resident of
village - Satanpatti, Police Station - Ratanpura, District - Supaul
3. Hiralal Yadav @ Hira Kumar S/o Ramesh Yadav Resident of village -
Satanpatti, Police Station - Ratanpura, District - Supaul
4. Shankar Yadav @ Shankar Kumar S/o Ramesh Yadav Resident of village -
Satanpatti, Police Station - Ratanpura, District - Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mohammed Arif, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341,
323, 307, 380, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and in sum and
substance, the allegation is that petitioner no. 1 Birendra Yadav
assautled Laddu Lal Yadav by farsa causing injury on his head
and thereafter assaulted Rupesh Kumar by farsa causing injury
on his neck. It is further submitted that as far as other petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15028 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
are concerned, the allegatin against them is general and omnibus
in nature. It is next submitted that petitioners had moved before
the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail but then the
same came to be rejected thereafter the Investigating Officer of
the case gave notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. to the
accused persons and the accused persons cooperated in the
investigation and the Investigating Officer never felt the need of
arresting the petitioners but subsequently charge-sheet came to
be submitted based on which cognizance has been taken, hence,
petitioners apprehend their arrest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
when the police, during the course of investigation, never felt
the need of arresting the petitioners, whether it would be
prudent for the Court to send the petitioners to jail based on an
order of cognizance. It is further submitted that if the privilege
of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners
will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove their
innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners, above-named, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15028 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor Court in
connection with Ratanpura P.S. Case No. 28 of 2021, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial
Court comes to a conclusion that petitioners, after their release
on anticipatory bail, are trying to delay the framing of charge or
after framing of charge are trying to delay the trial of the case in
any manner, in both the conditions the learned Trial Court shall
be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…