Patna High Court
Lali Yadav @ Lal Babu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, subject to a bail bond and conditions, noting the exonerating police report and lack of process.
Summary
The petitioner, Lali Yadav, was implicated in a case (Paliganj PS Case No.81 of 2011) alleging his involvement in the death of his wife, with charges under Sections 304B, 201 and 34 of the IPC. The investigating police concluded that the death was accidental, caused by drowning, and submitted a final exonerating report, but the magistrate nonetheless took cognizance of the case on 10‑05‑2012. The petitioner, who has no prior criminal record, did not receive any summons, warrant or notice under Sections 82 or 83 of the CrPC and therefore applied for anticipatory bail to avoid arrest. The State opposed the bail, arguing that the case remains pending. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, subject to a bail bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and conditions that the bail may be cancelled if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the investigating agency’s final report exonerates the accused.
- Whether the absence of summons or warrants under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether bail under Section 438(2) CrPC may be conditioned on the petitioner’s cooperation and non‑delay of trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 82, 83
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Indian Penal Code
- murder
- police exoneration
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58115 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2011 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Lali Yadav @ Lal Babu Yadav S/o- Late Rama Yadav Village- Anchal Tola
Ps- Paliganj Dist- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Senior Advocate
Mr. Mayank Raj, Advoate
Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate
Mr. Adarsh Parihar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 13-03-2026 Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Mayank Raj for the petitioner and Mr.
Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 201 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. It is next
submitted that in sum and substance the allegation is that wife
of the petitioner died. It is next submitted that wife of the
petitioner had gone to fetch water from a well when she fell and
died thus, UD Case No.15 of 2010 was registered but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58115 of 2025(4) dt.13-03-2026
2/4
subsequently the mother of the deceased instituted a complaint
case based on which an FIR being Paliganj P.S. Case No.81 of
2011, dated 11.04.2011 came to be instituted.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that police after investigation came to a considered conclusion
that petitioner is innocent thus, submitted final form exonerating
the petitioner of the allegation finding the death to be caused by
asphyxia on account of drowning as was recorded in the post
mortem report. It is next submitted that the learned Magistrate
differing with the police report took cognizance by an order
dated 10.05.2012. It is further submitted that since final form
was submitted, as such, petitioner was not aware that
cognizance has been taken nor he received any summon,
bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant. It is also submitted
that till date no process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has
been issued. It is also submitted that when one investigating
agency, after a threadbare investigation, came to a considered
conclusion that petitioner is innocent, whether it would be
prudent for the Court to send the petitioner to jail based on an
order of cognizance which came to be taken based on the same
police report which exonerated the petitioner of the allegation. It
is reiterated and submitted that petitioner never received any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58115 of 2025(4) dt.13-03-2026
3/4
summon, bailable warrant or non-bailable warrant and process
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. till date has not been issued
but then the police came knocking the door of the petitioner but
petitioner was not present in the house and was informed by his
family members and thereafter he approached the learned
District Court seeking anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that
if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to
prove his innocence. It is also submitted that Gauri Devi and
Vijay Yadav had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail
by filing Cr. Misc. No.2444 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No.4735 of
2025 respectively and the same came to be allowed by an order
dated 08.05.2025 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench.
5. Learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, let petitioner, above named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-
VI, Danapur in connection with Paliganj P.S. Case No.81 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58115 of 2025(4) dt.13-03-2026
4/4
2011, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial
Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release on
anticipatory bail is trying to delay the framing of charge or after
framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in any manner, the
learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of
the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…