Patna High Court

Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 30 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Summary

The petitioner, Santosh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 314, 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, created nuisance and panic when an informant attempted to recover land he had allegedly paid for. The petitioner contended that he had done nothing overtly illegal, had no criminal record, and was only accused of creating nuisance. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the charges. Considering the petitioner’s clean antecedents, the general nature of the accusations, and the provisions of Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., the court granted anticipatory bail, directing that if arrested within eight weeks he be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in a case involving alleged nuisance and other offences.
Whether the allegations against the petitioner constitute a serious offence warranting denial of bail.
Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedents justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 314, 316(2), 318(4), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
nuisance
land dispute
clean antecedents
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6309 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Kumar Yadav Son of Arjun Yadav Resident of
                 Village - Banibigha, P.S.- Bikram, District - Patna

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner       :        Mr. Dineshwar Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   30-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4),

                   316(2), 314, 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that the

                   informant came in an agreement with co-accused Ash Narayan

                   Yadav to purchase a piece of land appertaining to Khata No.

                   101, Plot No. 630, Area- 11 decimal and gave Rs. 3,51,000/- as

                   consideration money, however, on the date of registry, the

                   accused persons did not come to the Registry Office and thus,

                   cheated him. It is further alleged that on 15.12.2024, when the

                   informant tried to get the land in question cleaned with J.C.B.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6309 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026
                                            2/3




          this petitioner, along with co-accused Ashok Yadav, created

          nuisance and panic.

                        4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

          committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is

          apparent that petitioner is only alleged to have created nuisance

          when the informant visited the plot in question. There is

          absolutely no allegation of any overt act against this petitioner.

          It is not the case of the prosecution that this petitioner received a

          single farthing as consideration money from the informant.

          Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

                        5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioner.

                        6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and clean

          antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

          bail to the petitioner is allowed.

                        7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within

          a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named

          petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6309 of 2026(3) dt.30-03-2026
                                                         3/3




                       each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Danapur, Patna

                       in connection with Bikram P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025, subject to

                       condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…