Patna High Court
Mahendar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court rejected anticipatory bail for petitioners 1 and 2 but granted it to petitioners 4, 5, 6 and 7 subject to bond and statutory conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of seven Yadavs, sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging extortion, threats with a pistol, and offences under the B.N.S. 2023 and the Arms Act. The informant claimed the accused intercepted him on 06.08.2024 and demanded Rs.5 lakh. The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated and cited earlier anticipatory bail orders granted to other accused in similar cases. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioners' multiple prior criminal antecedents and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The Court denied anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 (Mahendar Yadav) and 2 (Okender Yadav) due to their extensive criminal records, but granted bail to petitioners 4, 5, 6 and 7 subject to a Rs.25,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., including cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused in view of the alleged extortion and arms offences.
- Whether the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to other accused (Saroj Yadav and Vimal Kumar Raushan) creates a binding precedent for the present petitioners.
- Whether conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. can be imposed to ensure cooperation with investigation.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 308(3), 308(4), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- arms offence
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482(2)
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2350 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2024 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
1. Mahendar Yadav S/o Late Shiv Pujan Yadav RO Village - Mahuari, PS-
Piarpura, District- Patna
2. Okender Yadav S/o Late Shiv Pujan Yadav RO Village - Mahuari, PS-
Piarpura, District- Patna
3. Upendar Yadav S/o Late Shiv Pujan Yadav RO Village - Mahuari, PS-
Piarpura, District- Patna
4. Anil Yadav S/o Late Shiv Pujan Yadav RO Village - Mahuari, PS- Piarpura,
District- Patna
5. Nirbhay Kumar S/o Okendar Yadav @ Okender Yadav RO Village -
Mahuari, PS- Piarpura, District- Patna
6. Deepak Kumar S/o Late Surendar Yadav RO Village - Mahuari, PS-
Piarpura, District- Patna
7. Vivek Nandan Yadav @ Vivek Kumar S/o Late Surendar Yadav RO Village -
Mahuari, PS- Piarpura, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Soni Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Amrit Pal, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 126, 115(2), 109, 308(3), 308(4), 352 of B.N.S.,
2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2350 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/5
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner no.3, who was arrested.
4. Permission is accorded.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no.1 has antecedent of nine cases, petitioner no.2 has
antecedent of six cases, petitioner no.4 has antecedent of four
cases, petitioner no.5 has antecedent of two cases, petitioner
no.6 has antecedent of one case and petitioner no.7 is a person
with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on
06.08.2024 at about 9 P.M., he was coming back home, when
eleven named accused persons including the petitioners
intercepted him and started abusing and put pistol on his
forehead and demanded extortion of Rs.5 lacs on the pretext that
being Mukhiya, have earned a lot but the informant managed to
escape.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it wold manifest that allegations
are general and omnibus in nature though informant alleges that
accused persons including the petitioners on point of pistol
demanded extortion. It is further submitted that it does not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2350 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/5
appear probable that where eleven accused persons would have
intercepted the informant, the petitioners could have managed to
escape by starting his motorcycle. It is also submitted that Saroj
Yadav had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Cr. Misc. No.53259 of 2025 and the same came to be
allowed by an order dated 18.08.2025, thereafter Vimal Kumar
Raushan also approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Cr. Misc. No.75856 of 2025 and the same came to be
allowed by an order dated 11.02.2026. It is thus submitted that
petitioners be also granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is
also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
the petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove their innocence.
7. Learned APP vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioners and submits that Saroj Yadav
had antecedent of one case and Vimal Kumar Raushan had
antecedent of five cases but in the instant case, petitioner no.1
has antecedent of nine cases, petitioner no.2 has antecedent of
six cases and petitioner no.4, 5 and 6 also have antecedent of 4,
2 and 1 case. It is further submitted that if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners may abscond or try to
tamper with the evidence. It is further submitted that merely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2350 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
4/5
because Vimal Kumar Raushan and Saroj Yadav have been
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, the same does not
entitle the petitioners to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner no.1 and 2.
9. The anticipatory bail application of petitioner no.1,
namely, Mahendar Yadav and petitioner no.2, namely, Okender
Yadav is rejected.
10. However, petitioner no.4, 5, 6 and 7, above
named, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period
of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned S.D.J.M., Danapur, in connection with Paliganj P.S.
Case No.310 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
11. It is made clear that one close relative of
petitioners shall be one of their bailors.
12. It is also made clear that in the event, if any
application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the
learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioners, despite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2350 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
5/5
giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the
investigation, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel
the bail bonds of the petitioners after recording reasons.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…