Patna High Court
Ashok yadav @ Ashok KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied to petitioners No.1 and No.5 but granted to petitioners No.2, No.3 and No.4.
Summary
The petitioners, five Yadav brothers, were charged under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly assaulting an informant with an iron rod, lathi, and a knife, causing injuries and intent to cause death. They contended that the incident was a mutual free fight, with both sides sustaining injuries, and filed a counter‑case prior to the present FIR, seeking anticipatory bail. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that petitioner No.1 repeatedly assaulted the informant with a knife and that petitioner No.5 supplied the weapon, emphasizing his criminal antecedents. Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh, the court held that the nature of the weapon and the accused’s conduct are material for bail considerations. Consequently, the court denied anticipatory bail to petitioners No.1 (Ashok Yadav) and No.5 (Rajesh Yadav) while granting bail to petitioners No.2, No.3, and No.4 subject to standard conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 109, 303, 352, etc., of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the nature of the weapon used and the manner of assault affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether prior criminal antecedents and the alleged supply of a weapon justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 352 read with 3(5), 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- weapon
- criminal antecedent
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 109
- Section 303
- Section 352
- free fight
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41818 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2026 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Ashok Yadav @ Ashok Kumar Son of Late Hirdayanarayan Rai
2. Vinod Yadav @ Vinod Kumar son of Late Hirdayanarayan Rai
3. Ripu Kumar Son of Nawalkishor Rai
4. Lalan Yadav @ Lalan Prasad yadav son of Late Shivji Rai
5. Rajesh Yadav son of Bharat Rai
All are resident of village- Kataha, Ward no. 4, P.S.- Muffasil, Dist- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioners are named in the FIR
and apprehending their arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Case No.130 of 2026 registered under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 read with 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’).
3. As per FIR, the petitioners alleged to assault the
informant by using iron rod and lathi during occurrence,
causing head and bodily injuries, having intention to cause
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41818 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/4
death, where occurrence alleged to be arising out of previous
enmity.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners that the occurrence was free fight in nature,
where both parties received injuries and for same set of
occurrence, petitioners’ side also lodged Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 129 of 2026. It is submitted that the case of petitioners
was lodged before lodging this case and to counter the case
of petitioners, the present case was lodged as an
afterthought. It is further submitted that the nature of
injuries upon medical examination found simple in nature and
moreover, petitioner no.1 to 4 are men of clean antecedent,
whereas petitioner no.5 involved in two more criminal cases,
where he is on bail.
5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel
appearing for the informant while opposing the prayer of bail
submitted that the specific allegation qua repeated assault by
using knife upon informant is available against petitioner
no.1, though nature of injuries found simple. It is submitted
that the nature of injury is not the only criteria to make out a
case under Section 109 of the BNS, rather several factors are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41818 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
3/4
taken to be consideration like nature of weapon, manner of
assault, conduct of the accused persons during the
occurrence. In support of his submission, learned counsel has
relied upon legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through State of Himachal Pradesh vs.
Shamsher Singh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 807]. It is
submitted that petitioner no.5 namely, Rajesh Yadav is a man
of criminal antecedent and he found involved in two more
criminal cases of heinous nature where one was lodged under
NDPS Act and another case was lodged under Section 302 of
the IPC. It is also pointed out by learned counsel appearing
for informant that petitioner no.5 supplied knife to petitioner
no.1 during the occurrence. It is conceded that injury of lathi
as alleged to be caused by petitioner no.3 is not available
from injury report.
6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of fact, as petitioner no.1 alleged to assault
repeatedly by using knife to the informant, which appears
corroborating with injury report and as petitioner no.5 who
supplied knife to petitioner no.1 and man of criminal
antecedents, as discussed aforesaid, accordingly, the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41818 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
4/4
of anticipatory bail of petitioner no.1 namely, Ashok Yadav @
Ashok Kumar and petitioner no.5 namely, Rajesh Yadav
stands rejected.
7. As allegation of assault prima facie not available
against petitioner nos.2, 3 and 4, accordingly, their prayer of
anticipatory bail is allowed and petitioner no.2 namely, Vinod
Yadav @ Vinod Kumar, petitioner no.3 namely, Ripu Kumar
and petitioner no.4 namely, Lalan Yadav @ Lalan Prasad
Yadav, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court
below within a period of four weeks, are directed to be
released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with
Muffasil P.S. Case No.130 of 2026, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the CrPC/under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.