Patna High Court
Golu yadav @ Pawan yadav @ Pawan Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners—Golu Yadav, Ram Milan Yadav and Aman Kumar—filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a criminal case (Manjhi P.S. Case No. 262 of 2025) filed under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleges that the accused, in collusion, assaulted the informant. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, the injuries were minor, and they were innocent, while also noting their own pending criminal cases. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegations and the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents, characterizing them as habitual offenders. The High Court, after considering the facts, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to surrender within four weeks for the trial court to consider their regular bail applications.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 given the nature of the alleged offences and their criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 137(2), 303(2), 308(2), 331(4), 351(3), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail application
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- habitual offender
- pending criminal cases
- Section 115
- Section 352
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29231 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2025 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran
======================================================
1. Golu yadav @ Pawan yadav @ Pawan Kumar Yadav Son of Krishna yadav
Resident of Village- Dumaigarh Ps- Manjhi District -Saran at Chapra
2. Ram Milan yadav son of Bharat yadav Resident of Village- Dumaigarh Ps-
Manjhi District -Saran at Chapra
3. Aman Kumar @ Aman Kumar Yadav Son of Bharat yadav Resident of
Village- Dumaigarh Ps- Manjhi District -Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 262 of 2025, dated
13.07.2025, lodged under Sections 115(2), 331(4), 137(2),
351(3), 352, 61(2), 303(2) and 308(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS, 2023”), pending
before the Court of A.C.J.M., 4th, Saran at Chapra.
3. As per the prosecution, an FIR has been lodged
against six named accused persons, including the present
petitioners, with the allegation that all the accused persons, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29231 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/3
connivance with each other, assaulted the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel further submits that the petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that the present
case has been lodged over a petty dispute. Counsel further
submits that the doctor found the injuries to be simple in nature.
Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedents of the
petitioners are not clean, as seven criminal cases are pending
against petitioner No. 1, one criminal case is pending against
petitioner No. 2, and three criminal cases are pending against
petitioner No. 3.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners and submits that there are specific
allegations against the present petitioners. Counsel further
submits that the petitioners do not have clean antecedents and,
considering their previous history, they appear to be habitual
offenders.
6. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29231 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/3
7. Liberty is hereby granted to the petitioners that if
they surrender within four weeks, the Trial Court shall pass
orders on their surrender-cum-bail applications on the same day,
without being prejudiced by the fact that their anticipatory bail
applications have been rejected by this Court. The Trial Court
shall pass orders on the merits of the case.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…