Patna High Court
Mikandar Yadav @ Makindar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners No.2 and No.3 subject to statutory conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, accused in FIR No. 297 of 2025 for alleged assault, sought anticipatory bail. Petitioners No.1 and No.4 withdrew their applications, which the court allowed. The remaining petitioners, No.2 and No.3, argued that the FIR did not specifically implicate them and that they have clean antecedents. The State opposed the bail. Considering the lack of specific allegations against them and their clean records, the court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners No.2 and No.3, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR does not specifically allege the involvement of the accused.
- Whether a clean antecedent is sufficient ground for granting anticipatory bail.
- Whether the withdrawal of an anticipatory bail application affects the consideration of remaining applicants.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 324(4), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- withdrawal of application
- clean antecedent
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- bail conditions
- assault
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22344 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-297 Year-2025 Thana- BAUNSI District- Banka
======================================================
1. Mikandar Yadav @ Makindar Yadav Son of Late Jairam Yadav Resident of
village -Porany P S- Bounsi District -Banka
2. Babita Devi Wife of Mikandar yadav Resident of village -Porany P S-
Bounsi District -Banka
3. Pramod yadav Son of Umesh yadav Resident of village - Babu tola, Block
Gate, Ps- Banka Dist- Banka
4. Golu Kumar son of Umesh Prasad yadav Resident of village - Babu tola,
Block Amarpur Road, Ps- Banka Dist- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner Nos.1 and 4.
3. Permission is accordingly granted.
4. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the
anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner Nos.1
and 4 stands dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner is at
liberty to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22344 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
four weeks from today and it is expected that on surrender, his
regular bail application will be heard on merits.
5. Now, the anticipatory bail application with respect
to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are being considered.
6. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Bounsi P.S. Case No.297 of 2025, F.I.R dated
21.10.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 329(4), 324(4), 303(2), 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
7. According to prosecution case, on 18.10.2025 at
about 8:30 A.M., while the informant was at his house, all the
petitioners/accused persons named in the FIR allegedly arrived
armed with lathi, bhala, sarsa and sword, forcibly entered the
house and assaulted the informant, causing head injuries. When
the informant’s wife came to rescue him, she was also assaulted
by the accused persons, who further threatened to kill them if
the matter was reported to the Police.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to
the allegations made in the F.I.R. and as also that the role of
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have not been attributed in the F.I.R. and
therefore, while the petitioner No.3 is brother of petitioner No.2
and had visited the house for some personal reason and is in no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22344 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
way connected with the incident in question. It has further been
prayed that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have clean antecedent and on
this ground, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks privilege of
anticipatory bail.
9. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner Nos.1 and 4 have already been withdrawn
while there being no specific allegation against the petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have clean antecedent.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
11. 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 C.J.M., Banka, in connection with Bounsi P.S. Case
No.297 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:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22344 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
(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
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.