Patna High Court
Dilip YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dilip Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 308(2), 308(5), 303(2), 109, 352 of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He argued that the allegations were vague, that he had been falsely implicated, and pointed to the grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused, Prabhu Yadav, as a precedent. The State opposed, highlighting Yadav’s antecedent of seven cases, the seriousness of the alleged loot, firing and extortion, and the risk of him absconding. The court noted that the petitioner’s case was not analogous to the earlier bail granted to Bindeshwari Yadav and found the allegations sufficiently specific. Consequently, the court refused the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the serious allegations and his criminal antecedent.
- Whether the FIR allegations are sufficiently specific to deny bail.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to other co‑accused is determinative for the petitioner’s case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- Arms Act
- Sections 191, 190, 308, 303, 109, 352
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69632 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-195 Year-2024 Thana- KHARIK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Dilip Yadav S/o Late Buchchi Yadav R/o vill - Lattipur, P.s. - Bihpur, Distt.-
Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Kharik P.S. Case No.195/2024, registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 308(2), 308(5),
303(2), 109, 352 of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of seven cases but then petitioner was
acquitted in six cases and the informant alleges that a group of
armed criminals committed loot in multiple shops at Lattipur
crossing, including that in the shop of the informant and
terrorized the area by firing 20-25 rounds and also threatened
the shopkeepers to pay extortion money of Rs.10,000/- each or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69632 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
face arson.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus in
nature. It is also submitted that since petitioner has antecedent,
as such he came to be implicated. earlier also in similar manner,
petitioner was implicated. It is next submitted that petitioner is
not a criminal and similarly situated co-accused Prabhu Yadav
was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated
25.07.2025 by a learned Coordinate Bench.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner was
implicated in seven cases and allegation is of committing loot in
the shop of the informant and persons similarly situated and
allegation of firing is also there for terrorizing the shopkeepers.
It is further submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and
investigation in the case is continuing and if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-
accused Bindeshwari Yadav had approached this Court seeking
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69632 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 66648 of 2025 and the
same came to be allowed by an order dated 10.02.2026, on
which, the learned APP submits that the case of the petitioner is
not akin to the case of Bindeshwari Yadav.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.