Patna High Court
Mandhir YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s presence was held to have potentially emboldened the other accused to commit the offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Mandhir Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case involving illegal sand mining and alleged firing at a police seizure operation. The FIR alleged offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but the petitioner contended that he neither fired nor owned the seized tractors and was falsely implicated. The State opposed the bail, arguing that even if the petitioner did not fire, his presence encouraged the other accused to commit the offence, and granting bail would demoralise the police. The court examined the allegations, the role of the petitioner, and the principle that anticipatory bail should not be granted where the accused’s presence may facilitate the commission of the crime. Concluding that the petitioner’s presence could embolden the other accused, the court declined to extend anticipatory bail. The application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to an accused who, while not directly committing the alleged firing, was present at the scene and allegedly encouraged the commission of the offence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 186, 323, 332, 333, 353, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- sand mining
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- police seizure
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16710 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-330 Year-2022 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
======================================================
Mandhir Yadav Son of Arbind Yadav Resident of Dayalpur P.S -Rajoun, Dist-
Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 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, 148,
149, 323, 186, 332, 333, 353, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. and
Section 27 of the Arms Act..
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that on receiving information regarding illegal sand mining, the
police force reached the place of occurrence and seized two
tractors loaded with sand, but drivers fled, thereafter, petitioner
along with eleven sand mafias came and started firing and
manage to free one of the tractor.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16710 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that no specific allegation is alleged against the petitioner, it is
further submitted that specific allegation of firing is against the
named accused persons. It is also submitted petitioner is not the
owner of any of the seized tractor.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Chandra Bhushan
Prasad vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and
submits that though the petitioner is not alleged to have made
firing, but then the informant who is a police officer alleges that
two tractors loaded with sand were seized and when the same
were being brought to the police station when the force was
intercepted by the sand mafia including the petitioner and
named accused persons resorted to firing based on which one of
the seized tractor was freed, it is thus submitted that petitioner
might not have fired but then his presence at the place of
occurrence emboldened other accused persons also to commit
the occurrence, it is next submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to an accused who is involved in a
case prior to institution of the instant FIR that will also lead to
lowering the morale of the police.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16710 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.