Patna High Court
Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Mantu Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, stemming from a violent incident on 11 November 2019 in which the informant's minor son was killed. The FIR alleges that the petitioner was present at the scene carrying a bomb, although the bomb was not used, and that he threatened the victims. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, that no specific assault allegation was made against him, and relied on a prior anticipatory bail order granted to a co‑accused, Karu Yadav, to claim parity. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent, his alleged presence with a bomb, and the risk of absconding. The Court, after considering the submissions, found that the allegations against the petitioner were sufficient to deny anticipatory bail and was not persuaded by the parity argument. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the allegations of presence with a bomb and prior criminal antecedent.
- Whether the lack of a specific assault allegation against the petitioner warrants the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the precedent of anticipatory bail granted to a co‑accused (Karu Yadav) compels the same relief for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 201, 302, 447
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- attempt to murder
- criminal conspiracy
- bomb threat
- false implication
- parity principle
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18715 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-335 Year-2019 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui
======================================================
Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Kumar Yadav S/o Mohan Yadav R/o Village - Bela
Tanr, Tola Rajla Kalan, P.S - Jhajha, District - Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 447, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that accused persons including the petitioner came on
11.11.2019 at about 11:30 PM and asked to open the door,
accordingly, his minor son aged about 15 years opened the door,
when he was dragged outside the house and Sajan along with
Prem caught his legs while Ganesh and Rohan caught his hands
and Nandu sat on his chest and slit his neck by dabia and
thereafter ran behind the informant carrying arms, but fled when
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18715 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
villagers gathered on alarm, further petitioner was carrying
bomb in a bag.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific
allegation of slitting the neck of the minor son of the informant
is against Nandu and as far as this petitioner is concerned,
against him it is alleged that he was carrying bomb in a bag, but
then the bomb was not used. It is further submitted that Karu
Yadav had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26604 of 2023 and the same
came to be allowed by an order dated 14.07.2023 passed by a
learned Co-ordinate Bench, thus, the learned counsel based on
parity seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioner also, on the
ground that like Karu Yadav, no specific allegation of assault is
alleged against the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the case was instituted
in the year 2019 and petitioner in the year 2026 for the first time
approached the learned District Court seeking anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18715 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
and after the anticipatory bail application was rejected,
thereafter the petitioner moved before this Court. It is also
submitted that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is
that minor son of the informant was killed and it is specifically
alleged that petitioner was also present at the place of
occurrence with bomb, it is fairly submitted that though bomb
was not used, but then the same was a threat which desisted the
informant and others from helping his son against the accused.
It is further submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is
granted to the petitioner, he may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…