Patna High Court
Raushan Yadav @ Raushan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Raushan Yadav sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS No. 183/2025) involving offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(1), 351(2), 352, 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, arguing that the FIR only alleged his cousin Lalu Yadav of firing the weapon and that he did not cause the firearm injury. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s two prior cases, a process under Section 84 of the BNSS, and asserting that his presence encouraged the offence. The Court noted the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s antecedent record, and declined to extend anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged involvement in offences under the BNS Act and Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents and the process under Section 84 BNSS preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(1), 351(2), 352, 84
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- firearm injury
- Section 84
- Arms Act
- criminal antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.620 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Raushan Yadav @ Raushan Kumar S/O Late Pappu Yadav @ Salendra Yadav
R/O Vill.- Raghunathpur, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, Dist.- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 19-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(1),
351(2), 352, 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges
that on 20.06.2025 at 06:30 PM, she went to the house of her
neighbour Lalu Yadav seeking her due money, but he refused to
return the money and later at 08:00 PM, the accused persons
including the petitioner came at her house and started abusing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.620 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
2/3
and assaulting her while Lalu fired causing injury on her leg.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant being cousin brother of Lalu Yadav. It is also
submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the
FIR, it would manifest that petitioner is not alleged to have fired
causing firearm injury, but then specific allegation of firing is
against Lalu Yadav. It is further submitted that co-accused Amod
Kumar approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 81912 of 2025 and the same came
to be allowed by an order dated 15.12.2025 by a learned Co-
ordinate Bench.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits
that petitioner carries antecedent of two cases and process under
Section 84 BNSS has been issued against him on 15.12.2025
and the injury suffered by the informant has been opined to be
grievous caused by firearm. It is also submitted that petitioner
may not have fired, but then his presence at the place of
occurrence emboldened Lalu Yadav to commit the occurrence of
firing. It is also submitted that case of the petitioner is not
similarly situated to that of Amod Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.620 of 2026(2) dt.19-01-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…