Patna High Court
Gandhi Yadav @ Gandhi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner with a bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties, subject to cancellation if he attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Gandhi Yadav, applied for regular bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, not named in the FIR, and that his name only appeared in a confessional statement of another accused, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner might abscond. The court, after considering the submissions, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his father, and directed that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial. The order thus granted regular bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act despite the State's claim of a risk of absconding.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged false implication and the lack of his name in the FIR justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- false implication
- Arms Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- anticipatory bail
- surety
- trial court
- abscond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17550 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2024 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura
======================================================
Gandhi Yadav @ Gandhi Kumar Son of Lageena Yadav @ Lagina Prasad
Yadav Resident of Village- Latraha (Latra), ward no. 12, P.S.- Gopalpur,
District- Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS
as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and the informant
alleges that he along with his brother (Pawan), son (Pushpam)
and cousin brother Prince and Pravesh were returning home by
car, when six accused persons on two motorcycles came and
intercepted the car and pulled Pushpam out of the car and
assaulted and asked who is the contractor, on which, his brother
said that he is the contractor, thus his brother was taken behind
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17550 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
the car and shot, thus alleges that his brother was killed at the
instance of Pappu and Amit, on account of dispute relating to
contract.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that petitioner is not named in
the FIR and his name transpired in the confessional statement of
Pintu in the police custody, which does not have any evidentiary
value in the eye of law. It is also submitted that Amit Sah @
Amit Kumar had approached this Court seeking anticipatory
bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 13751 of 2025 and the same was
allowed by an order dated 12.05.2025, further Arun Mehta was
granted the privilege of regular bail by order dated 09.05.2025
in Cr. Misc. No.15327/2025 by a learned coordinate Bench, it is
also submitted that Siyaram Mehta and Shambhu Mehta have
been granted the privilege of regular bail by order dated
26.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.48239/2025 and order dated
06.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No.90126/2025 respectively.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
regular bail of the petitioner and submits that if privilege of
regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17550 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will
cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner,
above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court where the case is pending in connection with Puraini
P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father, namely, Lageena Yadav @ Lagina Prasad Yadav.
8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release, is
trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the learned
trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…