Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Baiju Yadav @ Baijhnath YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Petitioner Baiju Yadav sought anticipatory bail after learning that he was likely to be arrested in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. He contended that he has a clean record and that the informant’s version falsely implicated him; the informant alleged that Baiju and his uncle were intercepted, that Baiju caught his uncle, and that Raju stabbed the uncle and later assaulted the informant. The petitioner argued that even if the facts were true, the stabbing was attributed to Raju, not him. The State, through its A.P.P., countered that Baiju’s presence at the scene encouraged Raju’s act and that the investigation is ongoing. After considering the submissions, the Court was not persuaded to grant anticipatory bail and rejected the petitioner's prayer. Consequently, the petitioner remains liable to be arrested in the pending case.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Baiju Yadav in the case registered under the specified sections of the BNS.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • false implication
  • criminal procedure
  • BNS sections
  • pre‑arrest relief

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39935 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2026 Thana- VIJAYEPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Baiju Yadav @ Baijhnath Yadav Son of Ramchandra Yadav Resident of
                 Village- Kapardhika, P.S.- Kateya, District- Gopalganj.
                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                         ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Madhuresh Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Rabindra Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-06-2026                  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 126(2),

                   115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that he along with his uncle Anil were coming back

                   home from the market on motorcycle when they were

                   intercepted by the accused persons including the petitioner near

                   Bakaniya Crossing and petitioner caught his uncle and Raju

                   stabbed him causing injury on stomach and thereafter Raju also

                   assaulted the informant by knife who tried to save his uncle

                   causing injury on stomach.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39935 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
                                                       2/2




                     petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

                     informant. It is further submitted that even presuming what has

                     been alleged is true without admitting then the petitioner is not

                     alleged to have stabbed Anil and the informant, rather specific

                     allegation of stabbing the injured is against Raju.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

                     anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt,

                     specific allegation of stabbing Anil and the informant is against

                     Raju but then petitioner is alleged to have caught Anil and his

                     presence at the place of occurrence emboldened Raju to commit

                     the occurrence of stabbing and the investigation of the case is

                     continuing.

                                  6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the

                     privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with

                     Vijaipur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026 pending in the Court of

                     learned        Additional         Chief        Judicial     Magistrate-VI,

                     Gopalganj/Successor Court.

                                  7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.