Patna High Court
Pintu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
The petitioners, six Yadav brothers, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Gogari PS Case No. 317 of 2025) involving offences under sections 190, 191(2), 109(1), 117(2), 303(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bihar Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that they disrupted a family wedding, assaulted individuals with iron rods, stole a gold locket and took Rs. 20,000. The petitioners contended that the injuries to the complainants were simple, they have no prior criminal record, and the allegations are contested. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the alleged assault and disturbance. Considering the lack of antecedent, the simple nature of injuries, and the presence of counter‑claims, the Court granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail order required a cash bond, sureties, regular court appearances, police station attendance, and a prohibition on tampering with witnesses or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the nature of the alleged injuries and the absence of prior criminal antecedent justify bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed are sufficient to safeguard the trial process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Penal Code
- assault
- disturbance of marriage
- simple injury
- no criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20849 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Pintu Yadav S/o- Late Lakhan Yadav @ Lakhanlal Yadav Village- Chhoti
Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria
2. Banti Yadav @ Banti Kumar S/o- Sunil Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S.
Gogari, District- Khagaria
3. Sanni Kumar S/o- Sunil Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District-
Khagaria
4. Kare Yadav S/o- Late Anandi Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari,
District- Khagaria
5. Pankaj Yadav S/o- Late Anandi Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari,
District- Khagaria
6. Pawan Yadav @ Pawan Kumar S/o- Late Anandi Yadav Village- Chhoti
Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, learned Counsel
for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Gogari P.S. Case No. 317 of 2025, G.R. No. 3359 of 2025
for the offence registered under sections 190, 191(2), 109(1),
117(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on 03.12.2025, there was a wedding in the family but the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20849 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
petitioners who wanted to disturb the marriage came armed
variously and destroyed the pandal setup for the said wedding.
4. Allegation is that Sintu Yadav assaulted Manoj
Kumar on the head with the iron rod causing injury whereas
Pawan assaulted Bittu again on the head causing injury.
Allegation against Deepak Kumar is of hitting Sunil Yadav on
his hand while Bablu Yadav snatched gold locket and there is
also allegation on Mangal Yadav of taking away Rs. 20,000/-.
This led to the FIR.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that
both are agnates, the informant’s side have suffered grievous
injury, so far as the injury inflicted to the informant’s side from
the petitioners are concerned, it has been found to be simple in
nature, the injury records are part of the record as Annexure-2
series. The last submission is that the petitioners do not have
criminal antecedent.
6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that on the
day of marriage in the family, they tried to disturb it and
allegation of assault is also there.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the fact that there is case and counter case, none have criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20849 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
antecedent, injury has been found to be simple in nature, as
submitted by the petitioners’ counsel, in that background, this
Court is inclined to grant them the anticipatory bail with
conditions.
8. Let the petitioners in the event of arrest or
surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No.
317 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners 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 bail
bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for next six months to mark
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20849 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be
submitted to the Court;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
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;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.