Patna High Court
Santosh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted pre‑arrest bail to petitioners Nos.1‑4 but denied bail to petitioner No.5 due to the seriousness of the allegations against him.
Summary
The petitioners, five members of the Yadav family, were charged under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code for allegedly obstructing the execution of a court decree, during which police officers were injured. They applied for pre‑arrest bail, claiming innocence and asserting that the only allegation against them was that they lay down in front of a JCB, with no evidence of assault. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly that hindered lawful execution and caused police injuries. The court examined the FIR and found the allegation against petitioner No.5 (Manohar Yadav) to be serious, denying him bail, while finding no specific allegation against petitioners Nos.1‑4 and granting them pre‑arrest bail subject to bond and surety conditions and verification of criminal antecedent. The application was disposed, with bail granted to four petitioners and denied to the fifth.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to accused persons charged with obstruction of court decree and police injury under the listed sections.
- Whether the seriousness of the allegation against petitioner No.5 justifies denial of bail.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the Bihar Criminal Procedure Code permits the court to impose conditions on pre‑arrest bail.
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- unlawful assembly
- obstruction of court decree
- police injury
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60426 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2025 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. Santosh Kumar S/o Siyasharan Yadav R/o Village - Budhauli, P.S -
Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura
2. Satish Yadav @ Satish Kumar S/o Siya Sharan Yadav R/o Village -
Budhauli, P.S - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura
3. Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Kumar S/o Basdev Yadav @ Vasudev Yadav R/o
Village - Budhauli, P.S - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura
4. Basdev Yadav @ Vasudev Yadav S/o Late Tilak Yadav R/o Village -
Budhauli, P.S - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura
5. Manohar Yadav S/o Basdev Yadav @ Vasudev Yadav R/o Village -
Budhauli, P.S - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jai
Narain Thakur, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 201/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2),
115(2), 109, 132, 324(4), 125A, 352 of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioners, along with other co-accused, obstructed government
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60426 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
officials in the lawful execution of the decree passed by the
competent Court having jurisdiction, during which police
officials got injured.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel
submitted that, except for the allegation that the petitioners lay
down in front of the JCB, there are no other allegations against
them, nor have they assaulted any police officials. However, he
admitted that the petitioners can at best be said to be members
of an unlawful assembly which created hindrance in the lawful
execution of the decree passed by the competent court having
jurisdiction. The petitioners have clean antecedent. 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 and submitted that the
petitioners are members of the unlawful assembly which created
hindrance in lawful execution of the decree passed by the
competent Court having jurisdiction in which the police officials
got injured while they were performing their duty and as such,
the petitioners don’t deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60426 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, I find that the allegation against the peititoner
no.5 is serious in nature and he had also obstructed the police
force while they were performing their duty, in which police
officials got injured, and, as such, I am not inclined to enlarge
the petitioner no.5 on pre-arrest bail.
7. So far as, the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are
concerned in view of no specific allegation against them, the
petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned District Court where the case
is pending / Concerned Court in connection with Sheikhpura
P.S. Case No. 201/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4
and if it is found that the petitioner nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are
involved in some other cases, as what has been stated in
paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60426 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
automatically lose its force.
9. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…