Patna High Court
Sachin Yadav @ Sachin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond, sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioner, Sachin Yadav, sought bail in a case where he was alleged to have participated in an extortion and assault incident at a grocery shop, resulting in charges under multiple sections of the Bihar Penal Code. The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged a day after the incident, that the allegations against him were merely that he was an associate of the primary accused, and that he had a clean antecedent. The State contended that serious allegations of extortion and assault were levelled against him. The court noted the omnibus nature of the allegations, the delay in filing the FIR, and the petitioner's fair antecedent, and therefore ordered his release on bail with a bond and specific conditions, including a provision for cancellation if he intimidates witnesses. The bail was conditioned on compliance with Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the presence of a close family member as a surety.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted despite the petitioner being charged with multiple serious offences.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the omnibus nature of the allegations justify granting bail.
- Whether conditions under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be imposed to safeguard the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 308(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- extortion
- assault
- FIR delay
- fair antecedent
- witness intimidation
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36268 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2026 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL District-
Samastipur
======================================================
Sachin Yadav @ Sachin Kumar S/O Akhilesh Ray, R/O Village- Rahmatpur
Chaknur, P.S- Samastipur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Samastipur Mufassil P.S. Case No.06 of 2026 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1),
303(2), 308(3), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. On the alleged date and time of occurrence, two
accused persons claiming themselves as local extortionists
entered into the shop of the informant and asked for extortion.
When the objection was raised, they called upon their friends
including the petitioner. The accused persons further looted
Rs.28,000/- from the grocery shop of the informant and
assaulted his father with hockey sticks, causing fracture in his
leg. When the informant and his younger brothers tried to rescue
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36268 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
2/3
their father, they were also assaulted by the accused persons. On
hearing commotion, when other shopkeepers arrived, the
accused persons fled away.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, taking through the
FIR, contended that there is no specific accusation against the petitioner.
The specific accusation is levelled against co-accused Rajesh Kumar @
Jhamma Rai and Rishi Chaudhary, who came and entered the shop of
the informant and demanded extortion. So far as the petitioner is
concerned, the only allegation against him is that he was one of the
associates of the aforesaid co-accused persons and had subsequently
arrived at the place of occurrence along with others. There is a delay of
one day in lodging of the FIR. So far as the injury is concerned, though
it has been stated to have been inflicted on a vital part of the body,
neither the nature nor the extent of the injury has been disclosed. It is
lastly contended that the petitioner bears fair antecedent and he
undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the investigation and the
proceedings of the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed
the bail application and submitted that serious allegation of extortion
and causing assault to the informant and his father has been levelled
against the petitioner.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36268 of 2026(2) dt.02-06-2026
3/3
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the omnibus nature of allegation, coupled with the fair
antecedent of the petitioner and the delay in lodging of the FIR,
let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event
of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within
a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-II, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur
Mufassil P.S. Case No.06 of 2026, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further
following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(ii) If the petitioner is found involve in intimidating/
threatening the witnesses or the informant or would indulge in
such activities in future, the informant/State shall be at liberty to
file appropriate application for cancellation of his bail bond(s).
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.