Patna High Court
Raju YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the court was not convinced that the circumstances warranted such relief despite the petitioners' claims of compromise.
Summary
The petitioners, Raju Yadav and Amit Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (PS Case No. 194 of 2025) alleging they assaulted the informant's son, leading to his death. The FIR listed offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 103(1) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners claimed innocence, a compromise between the parties, and willingness to comply with any conditions, while highlighting one petitioner’s pending criminal cases. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the assault, the cause of death by blunt force, and the trial court’s finding of ample material against the accused. After reviewing the FIR and trial court observations, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the circumstances did not merit such relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the seriousness of the alleged assault and death
- Whether the existence of a compromise between parties and the petitioners' willingness to comply with conditions can outweigh the evidentiary material against them
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- assault causing death
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 191
- Section 352
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22631 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Raju Yadav S/o Late Ramji Ray R/o Village - Bhaisada, P.S - Ramgarhwa,
District - East Champaran
2. Amit Kumar @ Amit Yadav S/o Sanjeet Yadav R/o Village - Bhaisada, P.S -
Ramgarhwa, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 194 of 2025, dated
14.06.2025, lodged under Section 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(2),
117(2), 103(1) & 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter referred to as “BNS, 2023”), pending before the
Court of S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
five named accused persons, including the present petitioners,
alleging that they brutally assaulted the son of the informant,
which resulted in his death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel
further submits that both parties are residents of the same village
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22631 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/2
and have entered into a compromise, which forms part of the
record. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedents of
petitioner No. 1 are not clean, as there are two criminal cases
pending against him, whereas the criminal antecedent of
petitioner No. 2 is clean. Counsel also submits that the petitioners
are ready to comply with all conditions whatsoever that may be
imposed upon them.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail and submits that the allegations of assault and injury are
apparent from the order passed by the Sessions Court.
6. Upon perusal of the FIR and the rejection order, it
transpires to this Court that death has been caused due to
haemorrhage and shock caused by a hard and blunt object and its
impact. The Trial Court has also observed that there are ample
materials and direct allegations against the petitioners.
7. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is
hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.