Patna High Court
Ranjan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s extensive criminal history and the serious nature of the alleged offences precluded the grant of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (Vishnupad P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026) involving multiple IPC offences and a violation of the Arms Act, allegedly stemming from a land dispute. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co‑accused fired weapons, threatened the informant, looted money and caused property damage. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the allegations were vague, and highlighted a counter‑case filed by his wife against the informant. The State and the informant’s counsel emphasized the petitioner’s extensive criminal record, describing him as a habitual offender. Considering the seriousness of the alleged offences and the petitioner’s long criminal history, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal history warrants denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner are sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109(1), 111, 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 306(4), 307, 308(3), 324(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal history
- land dispute
- Arms Act
- IPC offences
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29039 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2026 Thana- VISHNUPAD District- Gaya
======================================================
Ranjan Yadav S/o Late Ramji Yadav @ Natai Yadav Resident of Mohalla -
Khatkachak, PS - Vishnupad, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjeet Choubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Madhura Nand Jha, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sujit Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. In the present case, the petitioner is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Vishnupad P.S. Case
No. 18 of 2026 registered for the offences under Sections
191(3), 191(2), 190, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 324(5), 308(3),
306(4), 126(2), 109(1), 307, 111, 61(2) of BNS and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, on a dispute over right
to way, the petitioner and other co-accused persons came and
abused the informant. They also resorted to firing and made 8 to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29039 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
10 rounds of firing. The petitioner threatened that they would
occupy the passage. Further, allegation against the petitioner and
other co-accused persons is that they attacked one on the resort
and caused damaged in lakh. They also looted Rs.50,000/- from
the shop of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. The petitioner is named at the instance of his enemies.
There is no specific allegation of any overt act against the
petitioner and the allegations are general and omnibus. The
counter version of the present case is Vishnupad P.S. Case No.
20 of 2026 which has been instituted by the wife of the
petitioner against the informant and others. Learned counsel
further submits that for the same piece of land earlier the same
informant has instituted Vishnupad P.S. Case No. 227 of 2025
fopr the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2),
303(2), 308(2), 324(4)(5), 3(5) of B.N.S. against the petitioner
and others. Learned counsel further submits that it is a case of
land dispute. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is
having antecedent of 12 cases but he has been exonerated in one
such case.
5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29039 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the submission
made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
informant submits that the petitioner and other co-accused
persons opened fire in order to threaten the informant and his
family members. Co-accused threatened the cousin of the
informant for murder. Learned counsel for the informant further
submits that the petitioner is a dreaded criminal of the area and
is habitual offender and altogether 12 cases have been instituted
against him for the offences under the Arms Act and 302 IPC.
6. Having regard to the long criminal history of the
petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail
and hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U T
Checking your session…