Patna High Court
Chandan Yadav @ Chandu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail is granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 and compliance with the conditions imposed by the court.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Yadav, was arrested on 22 May 2024 in connection with a case involving alleged assault, firing on an informant and possession of arms, charged under several IPC sections and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the FIR does not specifically allege his participation in the assault or firing, and that his inclusion was due to personal enmity. The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s four prior criminal antecedents, though noting he is on bail in those matters. The court noted that co‑accused had been granted anticipatory bail in similar circumstances and, after considering the facts, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a Rs 10,000 bond and specific conditions regarding trial attendance and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order was conditioned on verification of his criminal antecedents and compliance with the stipulated terms.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious nature of the offences under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged role in the FIR warrants detention or bail.
- Whether the granting of anticipatory bail to co‑accused influences the petitioner’s bail application.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 379, 504
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- anticipatory bail
- prior criminal antecedents
- trial cooperation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3690 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Chandan Yadav @ Chandu Yadav S/O Sadhu Sharan Yadav R/O Village- Ore
Bigha, P.S- Makhdumpur, Distt.- Jehanabad, presently residing in Mohalla-
Chhotaki Nawada (Cotton Mill), P.S- Delha, Distt.- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
22.05.2024 in connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No. 466 of
2023, F.I.R. dated 10.09.2023 for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along
with other accused persons have assaulted and fired upon the
informant due to which the informant sustained gun shot injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3690 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
2/4
present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and
fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as
alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R that although the
petitioner is named in the F.I.R but there is no allegation of
assault or firing against this petitioner rather the only allegation
against the petitioner is that he along with other accused person,
namely, Umesh have caught hold the informant and the co-
accused fired upon him. He further submits that the petitioner
has been made accused in the present case due to previous
enmity. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. He further
submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Nishant
Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 87013 of 2024 and another co-accused, namely,
Kartik Chandra Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42015 of 2025. The petitioner is in
custody since 22.05.2024.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and apart from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3690 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
3/4
that the petitioner carries four criminal antecedents other than
the present one but fairly submits that he is on bail in all the
pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned DASJ-XI,
Gaya in connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No. 466 of 2023,
subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3690 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…