Patna High Court
Dhanraj Prasad @ Dhanraj YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhanraj Prasad, was named in an FIR for assaulting an informant and others, alleged under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. He contended that the incident was a free fight and that the FIR contained a general, omnibus allegation, asserting that the case was false and stemmed from prior enmity. He highlighted that co‑accused Sunil Yadav and Vijay Yadav had already been granted anticipatory bail, and argued that, given his clean antecedents, he should likewise be released on bail. The State could not refute the claim that the allegations were general in nature. Considering the parity with co‑accused and the petitioner’s clean record, the Court ordered anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the FIR alleging offences under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations warrants bail
- Whether parity with co‑accused who have been granted bail mandates granting bail to the petitioner
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352 read with 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- general and omnibus allegation
- assault
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail parity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45190 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-596 Year-2024 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Dhanraj Prasad @ Dhanraj Yadav, Son of Late Chintaman Yadav @
Chintawan Prasad, Resident of Village-Manjhauli, P.S.- Fatehpur, District-
Gaya Ji, Bihar, Pin- 824232
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anmol Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 03-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Fatehpur P.S.
Case No. 596 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2),
351(2), 352 read with 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to assault
the informant and others by using lathi and iron rod, causing
bodily injury with intention to cause death.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the occurrence was free fight in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45190 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
2/3
nature. It is submitted that out of previous enmity arising
out of Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 286/2024, the present false
case was lodged against the petitioner. It is pointed out that
upon facial perusal of the FIR, it can be gathered safely that
allegation qua physical assault is very much general and
omnibus against this petitioner, whereas same appears
specific to the extent with co-accused Sunil Yadav and
Pankaj Yadav, where Sunil Yadav (co-accused) has already
granted anticipatory bail by one of the learned coordinate
Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 22870/2025 dated
01.05.2025 and co-accused namely, Vijay Yadav @ Vijay
Kumar has already granted anticipatory bail by this Court
through Cr. Misc. No.27477 of 2025 dated 13.01.2026,
and, therefore, considering the judicial parity, the petitioner
also deserves bail. The petitioner claimed clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State while opposing the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, could not
disputed that allegation qua physical assault against the
petitioner is general and omnibus in nature, as submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45190 of 2026(2) dt.03-07-2026
3/3
6. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and
by taking note of the fact as allegation qua physical assault
is appearing very much general and omnibus against the
petitioner, coupled with the fact that other co-accused have
already granted anticipatory bail as discussed aforesaid,
accordingly, above-named petitioner, who is man of clean
antecedent, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a
period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Gaya Ji/concerned
court in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 596 of
2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.