Patna High Court
Rajesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties of equal amount.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Yadav applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a complaint case (No. 1320 of 2023) that alleged his participation in assault, threats, and theft under multiple IPC sections and the Daain Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, attacked the complainant, pressed her neck, and a co‑accused took a gold chain from her. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to a local road‑dispute and that no criminal antecedent existed. The State opposed the bail, while the complainant’s counsel emphasized the direct allegations against the petitioner. The Court, noting that cognizance had been taken only against the petitioner, his clean record, and the need to prevent undue hardship, ordered that he be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of the same amount, subject to surrender within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious allegations under the IPC and Daain Act.
- Whether the fact that cognizance was taken only against the petitioner, and his lack of prior criminal record, warrants bail.
- What conditions, if any, should be imposed on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 323, 34, 341, 354, 380, 452, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- Indian Penal Code
- Daain Act
- false implication
- village dispute
- surety
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3024 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1320 Year-2023 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
Rajesh Yadav, Son of Umesh Yadav @ Umesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of
Village - Sonbigha, P.S.- Tankuppa, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Aasha Devi, D/o Rajendra Yadav, Resident of Village- Sonbigha, P.S.-
Tankuppa, District - Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the
complainant/opposite party no.2.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case no.1320 of 2023, registered under sections
147, 148, 323, 341, 504, 452, 380 354, 120B and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Daain Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the complainant states
that on 7.7.2023 at 1:30 p.m. while she was in her house, the
accused persons including the petitioner herein came and started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3024 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
to abuse her and started calling her a witch. He started
threatening to kill her and in that process started pressing her
neck. She further states that on the younger brother and others
coming to the complainant’s rescue, the petitioner as also his
wife Rekha Devi, Ajeet Yadav, Phulwa Devi, Virendra Yadav
and Ranju Devi all armed with lathi etc. came and assaulted the
complainant and others as a result of which she was injured.
Ranju Devi is said to have taken a gold chain from the neck of
her mother.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of
dispute over raasta between the parties who are co-villagers. It
is submitted that it is for this reason that on conclusion of the
enquiry, cognizance was taken against the petitioner alone and
thus the entire prosecution story falls to the ground. The
petitioner has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to
cooperate in the case.
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by
learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 that not only the petitioner is named in the complaint
but there is direct allegation against him of having abused and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3024 of 2026(4) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
assaulted the complainant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the complaint, cognizance not having been taken against the
other co-accused together with the petitioner not having any
criminal antecedent, it is directed that the petitioner, above
named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned
Court below within a period of four weeks, be released on
anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case no.1320 of
2023 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gayajee.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U T
Checking your session…