Patna High Court
Kapil YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, holding that the lack of direct assault allegations and their clean criminal record warranted bail with conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Kapil Yadav and Nago Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a police case (Sara P.S. Case No. 46 of 2026) alleging offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The FIR alleged that a business dispute led to a group assault and the snatching of a chain and cash, with the petitioners being described as the order‑giver and a snatcher, while the main assault allegations were against other accused. The petitioners argued that they have no criminal antecedent, are not directly accused of assault, and that one co‑accused (Jeevan Yadav) had already been granted relief in a related bail application. The State opposed the anticipatory bail, emphasizing the petitioners' alleged role in the offence. The Court, after considering the submissions, held that the lack of direct assault allegations and the petitioners' clean record justified granting anticipatory bail, subject to stringent conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order directed the petitioners to furnish bail bonds, appear before the trial court and police regularly, and refrain from tampering with evidence or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners who are alleged to be the order‑giver and snatcher in the offence.
- Whether the absence of a direct assault allegation against the petitioners and their lack of criminal antecedent justify bail.
- Whether the relief granted to a co‑accused in a related matter influences the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- assault
- theft
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43879 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2026 Thana- SARE District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Kapil Yadav S/o Late Ragho Yadav R/o Village - Amba Bigha, P.S - Sare,
District - Nalanda
2. Nago Yadav @ Ajit Kumar S/o Kapil Yadav R/o Village - Amba Bigha, P.S -
Sare, District - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Sara P.S. Case No. 46 of 2026 for the offence registered
under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 3(5) of
BNS, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that due to dispute relating to the business, the accused persons
assembled and on the order of the petitioner, Kapil Yadav and
Arun Yadav, Jeevan Yadav gave gadasa blow on the head
whereafter, Arun Yadav and Sonu Yadav gave rod blow. Further,
when his son, Guddu Yadav came to rescue, Awadhesh Yadav
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43879 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/4
gave rod blow on the head. There is allegation of snatching of
the chain/cash amount also. Both were taken to Government
hospital and then to Pawapuri hospital. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that a
perusal of the FIR would show that main allegation of assault
is/are on Jeevan Yadav, Awadhesh Yadav, Arun Yadav and Sonu
Yadav. Further, allegation of snatching of the chain/ amount is
there on the petitioner as also one of the order giver, they do not
have criminal antecedent. The last submission is that Jeevan
Yadav who is alleged to have assaulted the informant has been
granted relief by a Co-ordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 42804 of
2026.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail one of the petitioner is
the order giver while allegation of snatching is on the other
petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the fact that main allegation is against Arun Yadav, Sonu Yadav,
Jeevan Yadav and Jeevan Yadav has been granted relief, as
recorded above, these two petitioners do not have criminal
antecedent nor direct allegation of assault is/are against them, in
that background, this Court is inclined to grant them the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43879 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioners in the event of arrest or
surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-VI,
Biharsharif, Nalanda in connection with Sara P.S. Case No. 46
of 2026 subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for next six months to mark
attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be
submitted to the Court;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43879 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
4/4
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.