Patna High Court
Jagesh Prasad YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, finding no sufficient ground to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Jagesh Prasad Yadav, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in connection with a murder case (Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 456 of 2025) involving the death of Musmat Bikhani Devi. The FIR named other accused, but the petitioner’s name emerged during investigation as a witness to a sale‑deed executed by the deceased’s son, and he was not originally alleged to have participated in the crime. He argued that he was merely a witness, had no role in the alleged murder or any land transaction, and possessed a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, contending that the investigation could implicate the petitioner. The Court examined the facts, the petitioner’s lack of direct involvement, and the statutory provisions governing anticipatory bail, and consequently granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions, including bail bonds, sureties, personal appearance at trial, and verification of antecedents. The order emphasized that its observations would not affect the trial proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, should be granted to a person not named in the FIR but later implicated as a witness.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged role as a witness to a sale‑deed and his clean antecedent preclude the sustenance of any offence under Sections 103(1), 123 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 123, 61(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- witness
- sale deed
- clean antecedent
- Section 438
- Section 482
- B.N.S.
- B.N.S.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33648 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-456 Year-2025 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Jagesh Prasad Yadav, S/o Vira Rai @ Bira Ray, Resident of Village -
Jagiraha, P.S. - Turkauliya, Distt. - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 19-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in
connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 456 of 2025
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 103(1), 123 and
61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant gave a
written application stating that his sister, namely, Musmat
Bikhani Devi (the deceased) was murdered by all the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
2/4
persons forcibly by administering poison. It has been alleged
that when the informant reached the place of occurrence, he saw
that his sister was lying dead and, thereafter, the Police was
called on and the post-mortem was conducted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has been
transpired during the course of investigation, wherein, it was
found that the petitioner was a witness to a sale-deed, said to be
executed by the son of the deceased. It has been submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that it is on account of the fact that the
son of the deceased had executed the sale-deed and the said
Musmat Bikhani Devi had committed suicide for which, the
petitioner cannot be held to be responsible. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner merely stood as a witness to the
sale-deed and he was neither the land holder nor the person who
had got the sale-deed in his favour and, therefore, nothing can
be alleged against him and no offence is made out against the
petitioner, who was also not named by the informant initially. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
3/4
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the concerned
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court
where the case is pending in connection with Turkauliya P.S.
Case No. 456 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to
the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026
4/4
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/Tannu
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.