Patna High Court
Ram Sikil YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bond, sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) Cr.P.C.
Summary
Petitioners Ram Sikil Yadav, Ravindra Yadav and Sanjit Yadav sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act for alleged assault on a woman and her husband. They contended that the FIR was filed nine days after the alleged incident and based solely on a written application, not on the victim's statement, and that the case was motivated by a land dispute. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the delay and procedural irregularities highlighted by the petitioners. The court noted that the petitioners were not absconding and had approached the trial court for relief. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail to the three petitioners, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties each, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the FIR being filed after a delay and based on a written application.
- Whether the petitioners are deemed absconding under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
- Whether the alleged land dispute and alleged false implication affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 127(2), 3(5), 351, 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2), 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR delay
- false implication
- land dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 82
- Section 482
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2926 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2025 Thana- JALE District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Ram Sikil Yadav S/o Late Nandu Yadav @ Nand Yadav R/o village -
Bhimarpura , P.S - Jale , District - Darbhanga
2. Ravindra Yadav @ Ravindra Kumar S/o Ram Sikil Yadav R/o village -
Bhimarpura , P.S - Jale , District - Darbhanga
3. Ram Prayag Yadav S/o Late Nandu Yadav @ Nand Yadav R/o village -
Bhimarpura , P.S - Jale , District - Darbhanga
4. Sanjit Yadav @ Sanjit Kumar S/o Ram Prayag Yadav R/o village -
Bhimarpura , P.S - Jale , District - Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner no.1, 2 and 4 apprehend their arrest
in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections
126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 352, 351, 351(2),
3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, 2 and 4
submits that petitioners have antecedent of one case, but the said
case was also instituted by the side of the informant. It is next
submitted that the informant alleges that on 09.09.2025 at 11:00
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2926 of 2026(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
PM, she along with her husband was irrigating their field when
accused persons came and tied her husband and thereafter
assaulted by knife causing injury on mouth, eye and also
assaulted by brick causing fracture of bone of chest and her
husband was taken to hospital from where he was referred to
PMCH.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that parties are on a litigating
term with respect to a land which the side of the informant
intends to capture, which is objected by the side of the
petitioners. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that though
there is allegation of assault by knife and brick but then
allegation of assault is not specific rather the allegation of
assault is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted
that the date of occurrence is 09.09.2025 and the FIR came to be
instituted on 18.09.2025, based on a written application of the
informant. It is further submitted that had the husband of the
informant been assaulted in the manner as alleged in the FIR, in
that event the FIR wold have been based on the fardbayan of the
injured or the fardbayan of the informant would have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2926 of 2026(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
recorded at the hospital but then that is not the case, which casts
an aspersion on the case of the prosecution that as to whether
the occurrence as alleged ever took place in the manner alleged.
It is also submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it would
manifest that the FIR was instituted on 18.09.2025 and the same
was seen by the learned ACJM-1 on 07.10.2025 i.e. after a delay
of more than 20 days, which also casts an aspersion on the case
of the prosecution. It is next submitted that no doubt the injury
has been opined to be grievous in nature but whether the injury
was caused by the petitioner or the occurrence took place in
some other manner and the petitioners came to be implicated on
account of previous dispute is an aspect of investigation. It is
fairly submitted that a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been
issued on 16.01.2026 but then it is submitted that petitioners
were not absconding rather were availing their remedies
available in law and had approached the learned District Court
by filing ABP No.1550 of 2025, which came to be rejected by
an order dated 24.12.2025 but by then the High Court was
closed, as such after opening of the High Court, the petitioners
filed the instant anticipatory bail application and during
pendency of the same the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. came
to be issued. It is thus reiterated and submitted that petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2926 of 2026(4) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
were not absconding rather were availing their remedies, in
accordance with law.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application but then is not in a position to rebut
the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners that the FIR has been instituted after a delay of nine
days of the occurrence and 20 days thereafter it was sent to the
learned District Court and the FIR has been instituted based on a
written application and not on fardbayan of the injured or the
informant.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner no.1, 2 and 4 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 bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court
in connection with Jalley P.S. Case No.180/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.