Patna High Court

Bholi Yadav @ Arvind Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: RAJIV ROY

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner was implicated by confessional statements and the FIR remained pending.

Summary

The petitioner, Bholi Yadav (Arvind Kumar Yadav), sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2014 dacoity case (IPC s.395) after his name was mentioned in the confessional statements of co‑accused. The FIR was lodged in 2014 against unknown persons, and the investigation later identified the petitioner. He filed an anticipatory bail application in 2024, which was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and again in 2026 before the Sessions Judge, both of which were dismissed. The petitioner argued lack of prior criminal record and the ten‑year gap before cognizance. The State contended that the petitioner was named in the confessional statements and that the delay in seeking bail was unreasonable. The High Court held that no relief could be granted as the petitioner was implicated by the co‑accused and the FIR remained pending, thereby rejecting the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner is named in the confessional statements of co‑accused in a dacoity case.
Whether the ten‑year delay in seeking anticipatory bail defeats the relief.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 395

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Indian Penal Code
section 395
dacoity
confessional statement
FIR
delay in filing
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21638 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2014 Thana- BODHGAYA District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Bholi Yadav @ Arvind Kumar Yadav S/O Hari Yadav Resident of village -
                 Dema, Police Station- Mohanpur, District- Gaya Jee

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Madan Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Bodh Gaya (Cherki) P.S. Case No. 220 of 2014

                   for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code

                   lodged on 16.07.2014 by the informant, Raju Kumar.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   on 14.07.2014, when his truck reached near Chamari Bigha, a

                   Bolero vehicle intercepted it and asked them to get down from

                   the truck. Their eyes were tied, dumped in the Bolero car and

                   taken towards Sherghati. There, they were given certain drugs

                   which made them unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness,

                   they anyhow, untied their hands and came on the GT road. They,

                   thereafter, informed the truck owner and later, lodged the FIR.

                                4. As the story unfolds, some accused persons were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21638 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                            2/3




          apprehended and on the basis of their confessional statement,

          the name of this petitioner cropped up.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

          do not have criminal antecedent, the alleged occurrence is of the

          year 2014, and for the first time, cognizance was taken against

          him in the year 2024 necessitating this anticipatory bail

          application.

                       6. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the

          FIR was lodged in the year 2014 against unknown, even

          accepting the petitioner’s version, upon knowledge of his

          implication on the basis of confessional statement of the

          accused persons, he preferred anticipatory bail application

          before the concerned Court in the month of February, 2024. It

          came to be rejected by the learned CJM, Gaya. He, thereafter,

          waited for two years to file anticipatory bail application before

          the learned Sessions Judge which got rejected in the month of

          January, 2026. Even thereafter, he took two months in filing the

          present anticipatory bail application.

                       7. Considering the submissions of the parties as also

          that the truck driver and his brother were tied, taken to a

          different place, made them unconscious and the accused persons

          left the place with the truck, the FIR was lodged against
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21638 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                      3/3




                    unknown, subsequently, during the investigation some of the

                    accused persons were apprehended and they named this

                    petitioner, no relief can be extended to him.

                                 8. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

                                                   (Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…