Patna High Court
Mahendra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties, and conditions, under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
Mahendra Yadav applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling Act, including a later addition of Section 303(2). He contended that he has a clean record and that the FIR was filed six days after the alleged incident, suggesting false implication by a neighbour with whom he has a property dispute. The petitioner argued that the alleged victim was not alone in the house and that the informant's allegations were unreliable. The State opposed the bail, asserting the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and compliance with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with a condition that bail may be cancelled if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the allegations and the nature of the offences.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the alleged false implication justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic and Smuggling Act — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- false implication
- FIR delay
- neighbor dispute
- Bihar criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36889 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-557 Year-2024 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Mahendra Yadav Son of Sarabdeo Yadav @ Sarapdeo Yadav Resident of
Village - Maya Bigha, P.S.- Madanpur, District - Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4),
126(2), 115(2), 76, 64, 62, 352 and 351(3) of the BNS and later
on Section 303(2) of the BNS has been added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that petitioner on 24.12.2024 entered her house with an
intent to commit wrong since she was staying alone in the house
with her children as her husband worked at Delhi but on alarm
her sister-in-law came and petitioner fled away after threatening.
Further, the informant disclosed the occurrence to her husband
who came from Delhi and thereafter the FIR was instituted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36889 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
2/3
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that petitioner and the
informant are neighbours and are having dispute relating to a
passage. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner has been
implicated with an allegation that he attempted to commit
wrong. It is also submitted that though informant was staying
with her children but then she was not alone rather her other
family members were also there in the house. It is submitted that
it is not the case of the informant that the house was opened and
the petitioner entered. It is further submitted that the FIR has
been instituted after a delay of six days which also casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that
if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner,
the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36889 of 2026(2) dt.15-06-2026
3/3
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor
Court in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 557 of 2024,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial
Court bringing to its notice that the petitioner, despite giving
assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation,
the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.