Patna High Court
Jiwan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the petitioner was implicated in extortion, threats, and property damage and had a criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Jiwan Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 alleging extortion, threats to kill, and damage to a plot of land belonging to an informant. He claimed the extortion calls were made from a mobile belonging to another person, Gama Kumar Yadav, and asserted a dispute over the land’s ownership. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the specific accusations of demanding a ransom, threatening violence, and destroying maize crops and a boundary wall. The Court examined the allegations, the petitioner’s alleged participation with co‑accused, and his criminal antecedent. Concluding that the seriousness of the charges and the risk of tampering with evidence warranted denial of bail, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations of extortion, threats, and property damage under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged involvement and criminal antecedent preclude the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 308(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- threats to life
- property damage
- land dispute
- B.N.S. 2023
- criminal antecedent
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1660 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2025 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan
======================================================
Jiwan Yadav S/O Baburam Yadav @ Baburam Prasad R/O Village-
Kandhwara, P.S.-Siwan Muffasil, District-Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Satyendra Rai, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
For the Informant : Md. Danish Suamar, Adv.
Ms. Madiha Muneer, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner,
learned Advocate for the Informant and the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 364 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S., 2023.
3. Based upon the written report, it is alleged that the
informant has been coming in possession of a plot of land, duly
purchased by his grandfather. However, the petitioner along
with others demanded a ransom of Rs. 10 lakhs in lieu of
making construction over the same, failing which he was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1660 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
threatened to kill the informant and his family. It is further
contended that earlier also, he was threatened through the
mobile phones. On 28.08.2025, the petitioner along with other
named and unknown criminal armed with rifle, gun came at the
plot and destroyed maize plants to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and
also damaged the boundary wall.
4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
primarily contended that the mobile phones, from which it is
alleged that the extortion call had came, do not belong to the
petitioner. Moreover, there is a dispute with regard to sale and
purchase of the land, in question, between the informant and one
Gama Kumar Yadav and it is Gama Kumar Yadav, who had
made a call from his mobile. However, taking shelter of
prevision animosity, the present FIR came to be instituted. The
aforesaid facts also fortified for the simple reason that the said
Gama Kumar Yadav had already lodged an FIR against the
informant bearing Nautan P.S. Case No. 228 of 2025 on
03.09.2025 itself. Only on account of past criminal antecedent,
the name of the petitioner has been implicated in this case.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
and the informant opposed the pre-arrest bail application and
submitted that there is a specific accusation against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1660 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
petitioner of causing demand of extortion and damaging the
boundary wall and the maize plants.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the accusation against the petitioner of demand of extortion,
besides active participation with other co-accused persons in the
crime, as also list of the criminal antecedent, as has been
disclosed in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application, this Court is
not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands
rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…