Patna High Court
Rupesh Yadav @ Rupesh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Petitioners Rupesh Yadav and Rajiv Yadav sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case arising from a land dispute where the informant alleged assault during Chhath Puja. The FIR alleged that Ganesh Yadav caused injury, and he had already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench. The petitioners argued that no specific allegation of injury was made against them and that one of them had no criminal antecedent while the other was already on bail. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, noting the lack of specific charges against the petitioners and the prior bail to Ganesh Yadav, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in the absence of specific allegations against them.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 61(2)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- land dispute
- assault
- Chhath Puja
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20051 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2025 Thana- Bathnaha District- Araria
======================================================
1. Rupesh Yadav @ Rupesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Lilanand Yadav R/o
Village - Palasi Ward no. 6, P.S. - Narpatganj, Distt. - Araria.
2. Rajiv Yadav @ Rajiv Kumar Yadav Son of Late Lilanand Yadav R/o Village
- Palasi Ward no. 6, P.S. - Narpatganj, Distt. - Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 19-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Bathnaha P.S. Case No.106 of 2025, F.I.R dated
28.10.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109 and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, in brief, is that the
informant, Suraj Kumar Yadav, lodged his fardbeyan on
28.10.2025 alleging that due to a long-standing land dispute,
while he was offering “Urga” during Chhath Puja at Parman
River, Sonapur, the accused persons assaulted him and Ganesh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20051 of 2026(4) dt.19-05-2026
2/4
Yadav fired at him below the waist, causing injuries. It has
further been alleged that the accused persons thereafter fled
away from the place of occurrence on motorcycles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
specific allegation of causing injury is against Ganesh Yadav,
who has already been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail
application by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 08.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.19740 of 2026 while
there is nothing specific against these petitioners, who is said to
have caused injury to any of the family members of the
informant, namely, Suraj Kumar Yadav. Lastly, it has been
submitted that the petitioner No.1 has no criminal antecedent
while petitioner No.2 has one criminal antecedent but he is on
bail in the said case.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the specific allegation of causing injury is against Ganesh
Yadav, who has already been extended the privilege of
anticipatory bail application by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court and there is nothing specific against these petitioners, who
is said to have caused injury to any of the family members of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20051 of 2026(4) dt.19-05-2026
3/4
the informant and the petitioner No.1 has no criminal antecedent
while petitioner No.2 has one criminal antecedent but he is on
bail in the said case. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant
the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in connection with
Bathnaha P.S. Case No.106 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20051 of 2026(4) dt.19-05-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.