Patna High Court
Shankar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 2 and directed a medical report before deciding bail for petitioner No. 1.
Summary
Petitioners Shankar Yadav and Anil Yadav were implicated in a FIR (Charkapathar PS Case No. 100 of 2025) under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for allegedly assaulting the informant’s father‑in‑law with deadly weapons. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated due to village politics and that any injury caused by petitioner No. 2 was in self‑defence without intent to kill. The State opposed the grant of pre‑arrest bail. The High Court, after examining the FIR and the circumstances, held that the allegations against petitioner No. 2 were general and that the injury could have been caused in self‑defence, and therefore granted anticipatory bail to him subject to a bond and sureties. For petitioner No. 1, the Court directed the District Court to obtain a medical opinion on the nature of the injury before deciding on bail. The application was disposed of with the above directions.
Issues considered
- Whether petitioner No. 2 is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations and claim of self‑defence.
- Whether petitioner No. 1 should be granted bail pending a medical report on the injury.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- self-defence
- village dispute
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail bond
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.533 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2025 Thana- Charkapathar District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Shankar Yadav Son of Parmeshwar Yadav R/o Village - Domasir(Ganda),
P.S. - Charkapathar, Dist. - Jamui.
2. Anil Yadav Son of Kesho Yadav R/o Village - Domasir(Ganda), P.S. -
Charkapathar, Dist. - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Zainul Abedin,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Charkapathar P.S. Case No. 100 of 2025 registered under
Sections 126(2),115(2),117(2),109(1),3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioners, along with co-accused persons, allegedly assaulted
the informant’s father-in-law with deadly weapons, including an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.533 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/4
axe and rod, with an intention to kill him, causing multiple
grievous injuries.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioners and the informant are co-
villagers and the petitioners have been implicated in the present
case due to village politics. There is general and omnibus
allegation against the petitioner no. 2. There is only one injury
found to be grievous in nature, which may have been caused by
the petitioner on the person of the informant in his self-defence,
without intention. The specific allegation is against the
petitioner no.1 that he is the one who with in intention to kill
had assaulted the father-in-law of the informant. On these
grounds the petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having considered the allegations made
in the FIR and the materials available on record, this Court finds
that the parties are co-villagers and the occurrence appears to
have arisen out of village dispute. The allegations against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.533 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/4
petitioner no. 2 are general and omnibus in nature and only one
injury is stated to be grievous in nature, the petitioner no.2, in
his self defence, may have caused some injuries on the person of
the informant, without intention. In above view of the matter, I
am of the opinion that the petitioner no. 2 has made out a case to
be released on anticipatory bail
7. The learned District Court is directed to release the
petitioner no. 2 on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the
satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending
in connection with Charkapathar P.S. Case No. 100 of 2025,
subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S.
9. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, the
learned District Court is directed to call for the final opinion
of the doctor in respect of the injury report of the injured
persons and if it is found that the same is simple in nature,
then in that case, the learned District Court may proceed to
pass a reasoned in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.533 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
4/4
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…