Patna High Court
Yogendra Chaudhary @ Yogendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner Yogendra Chaudhary sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged extortion and intimidation. He asserted a clean antecedent and claimed the informant’s allegations were false, contending that the extortion call originated from a different person and that the informant had filed a compromise petition which resulted in bail for the alleged mastermind, Jeevan Yadav. The informant opposed the bail, arguing that Jeevan is a dreaded criminal with multiple cases and that the petitioner was falsely implicated. The State’s counsel supported the informant’s position, while the petitioner’s counsel could not rebut the claim that no compromise existed between petitioner and informant. After evaluating the submissions, the Court declined to extend anticipatory bail, finding the petition unsubstantiated and rejecting the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated and whether a compromise exists between the informant and the petitioner.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita merit arrest.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 308(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- false implication
- compromise petition
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail
- criminal intimidation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22319 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2025 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan
======================================================
Yogendra Chaudhary @ Yogendra Yadav S/o Late Ramayan Chaudhary
Resident of Village- Ghanshyam Mathia, Nawka Tola, P.S.- Mairwa, District-
Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arbind Kumar Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP
Mr. Md. Danish Quamar, Advocate
Ms. Madiha Moneer, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Mairwa PS Case No. 364 of 2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that dreaded criminal Jeevan Yadav called him from
mobile No. 8757461228 on his mobile No. 9431272900 and
demanded extortion of Rs. 10 lakh and threatened that if extortion
is not paid, his land would be captured and family killed, further
on 28-8-2025 Jeevan along with petitioner and two named accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22319 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
came on his land and destroyed his maize crop worth Rs. 20,000/-
and destroyed the boundary wall and committed theft of pumping
set.
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 informant has filed a
compromise petition before the learned trial court based on which
Jeevan was granted bail on surrender and the case of the petitioner
is on better footing.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that Jeevan
Yadav is a dreaded criminal who has more than 10 cases against
him. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations as
alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant had
specifically alleged against Jeevan, petitioner and two others, but
then during the course of investigation the mobile from which the
extortion call came, it transpired that the same belong to one Gama
with whom Jeevan has no connection. It is also submitted that
Jeevan had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, but
then the same came to be rejected, thereafter he surrendered before
the learned trial court and based on a compromise he was released.
It is next submitted that from perusal of the order by which the bail
was granted to Jeevan, it would manifest that the same records that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22319 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
informant was present in the court and he said that the person who
has surrendered is not the person against whom the FIR is
instituted, it is also submitted that this amply demonstrates that
how informant was coerced into submission to enter into a
compromise by a criminal. It is next submitted that informant
specifically alleged against Jeevan, petitioner and two others, but
under fear the compromise was filed. It is further submitted that
informant has not compromised with the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant that no compromise has been
entered in between the petitioner and the informant.
7. Considering the submission made by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to
extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…