Patna High Court
Byas YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted provisional regular bail conditioned on verification of the petitioner’s antecedents, with cancellation if more than two prior cases are found.
Summary
The petitioner, Byas Yadav, was charged under several IPC sections (147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He had earlier applied for anticipatory bail and regular bail, both of which were rejected, but the court allowed him to renew his bail plea after charge framing. The informant’s counsel argued that the petitioner had four prior criminal cases and should not be granted bail, fearing he might abscond, while the petitioner claimed only two prior cases. After hearing both sides, the court directed that the petitioner be released on provisional regular bail upon furnishing a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents by the trial court. If the trial court finds more than two prior cases, the bail will be cancelled; otherwise, it will be confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for regular bail despite prior criminal antecedents and previous bail rejections
- Whether the court should impose conditions on bail pending verification of the petitioner’s criminal record
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 341
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- criminal antecedent
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- provisional bail
- clean hands
- absconding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28458 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-322 Year-2021 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
Byas Yadav S/o Mishri Yadav R/o Village - Magahi, P.S. - Laxmipur, District
- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ankita Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mrs. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akshat Arghya, Advocate
Ms. Nisha Jha, Advocate
Ms. Komal, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar Paswan, Advocate
Ms. Richa Rajiv Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and Mrs. Archana Sinha, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324,
325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that petitioner had earlier moved this Court seeking
anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 33382 of 2022 and the
same came to be rejected vide order dated 27.09.2022 by this
Court and thereafter petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 3075 of 2026
seeking regular bail and the same came to be rejected vide order
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28458 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
2/3
dated 17.02.2026 by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. It is further
submitted that charges, against the petitioner, stand framed by an
order dated 02.04.2026.
4. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that petitioner, in the present
regular bail application, has averred at para 3 that petitioner has
antecedent of two cases when he has antecedent of four cases as
would manifest from the order dated 24.11.2025 in B.P. No. 730 of
2025 whereby his regular bail application was rejected by the
learned District Court for the first time. It is further submitted that
petitioner while seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 3075
of 2026, had not approached this Court with clean hands. It is next
submitted that if the privilege of regular bail is granted to the
petitioner, chances are bright that petitioner will abscond. It is also
reiterated and submitted that a person, who does not approach the
Court with clean hands, should not be dealt leniently.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
vehemently rebuts the said submission of the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases only apart from the present
case but then it is being submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant that petitioner has antecedent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28458 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026
3/3
of four cases apart from the present case.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
since liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for
bail after framing of charge and charges have been framed, as
such, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on
provisional regular bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is
pending in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 322 of 2021
and thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner has
more than two antecedents excluding the present FIR in that event
his provisional regular bail shall be cancelled but if it is found that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases only apart from the present
case in that event the provisional regular bail bond shall be
confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…