Patna High Court
Om Prakash YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court held that, on the basis of the re‑statement and NCCT report, the incident was a free‑fight and the petitioner was not prima facie liable, warranting the grant of anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Yadav, was named in an FIR for assaulting an informant and his family with a khanti and iron rod during a land dispute. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR incorrectly attributed the khanti blow to him, and that the informant’s re‑statement and NCCT report showed the injury was caused by another accused, Sujit Kumar Yadav, with no brain injury to the informant. The court noted that the incident appeared to be a free‑fight and that there was no prima facie evidence of intent to cause death. Relying on these facts and a Supreme Court precedent, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a bail bond and sureties, with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is prima facie liable for the offences alleged in the FIR
- Whether the circumstances constitute a free‑fight negating intent to cause death
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under the applicable provisions
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74, 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- free‑fight
- land dispute
- assault
- intent
- NCCT report
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27080 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2025 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
Om Prakash Yadav Son of Late Raj Kumar Yadav Resident of village
Bishanpur, P.S.- Govindpur, District - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Vibhuti Ranjan Sonvadra, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP
For the Informant : Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
Mr.Vakil Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case
No. 247 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 76, 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5)
of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
3. As per FIR, the informant alleged that petitioner along
with other named co-accused persons assaulted him by means of
Khanti and iron rod causing head and bodily injury and when
his wife and grand-son came to rescue him, they were also
assaulted by the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that though through FIR, it is alleged that this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27080 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
petitioner along with one Sujit Kumar Yadav assaulted on head
of the informant where this petitioner assaulted by using Khanti
(sharp edged weapon), but during course of investigation when
his re-statement was recorded in paragraph 78 of the case diary,
it was categorically stated by him that Khanti blow was made by
Sujit Kumar Yadav and this petitioner was not said to assault
him, rather it is stated that his wife and grand-son was assaulted
by this petitioner and co-accused Jai Prakash Yadav.
5. In this context, it is submitted by learned counsel that
even the NCCT report of the brain of the injured/informant
nowhere suggest that he received any injury thereof, rather the
injury was found upon the shoulder of the informant where the
assault was made by other named co-accused persons not by this
petitioner. It is submitted that the occurrence took place in the
background of land dispute for which the counter case was also
lodged by petitioner’s side i.e. the wife of this petitioner and,
moreover, the petitioner and his family members also received
bodily and head injury during the occurrence.
6. It is submitted that as the occurrence was free-fight in
nature, it can be safely said that the petitioner was not under
intention to cause death. Learned counsel relied upon the legal
report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through State of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27080 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shamsher Singh reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 807.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State duly assisted by Mr. Sheo
Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the informant,
while opposing the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner,
submitted that as per FIR, the informant specifically alleged that
this petitioner, by using Khanti, assaulted on his head along with
other co-accused persons namely, Sujit Kumar Yadav, who
assaulted through iron rod, but he could not disputed the final
injury report of the informant where NCCT examination reveals
that no injury was found in the brain and he also could not
disputed the re-statement of the informant, as submitted
aforesaid.
8. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as prima facie occurrence appears free-
fight in nature in the background of land dispute where
informant, during investigation, failed to name this petitioner as
to cause him any assault on his head rather it was specifically
against co-accused Sujit Kumar Yadav, accordingly, above-
named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a
period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be enlarged
on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27080 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Nawada/concerned court in
connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025, subject
to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…