Patna High Court
Nepu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Section 480 of the B.N.S. does not bar the grant of bail in this case, and the petitioner is entitled to bail given the circumstances.
Summary
The petitioner, Nepu Yadav, was charged under several sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly entering the informant's house armed, firing shots, and threatening the informant's son. He sought bail, arguing that the FIR was lodged two days after the alleged incident, no injuries were reported, and the allegations were vague, while also highlighting his age (65) and the pending land dispute. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner is a habitual offender with four prior convictions and that Section 480 of the B.N.S. bars bail for such offenders. The Court examined the statutory scope of Section 480, noting it does not apply to High Courts or Sessions Courts, and observed the lack of concrete injury and the delay in FIR filing. Considering the petitioner’s age, custody duration, the charge sheet already filed, and the fact that co‑accused had obtained anticipatory bail, the Court granted bail on condition of a bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether Section 480 of the B.N.S. precludes the grant of bail to a habitual offender.
- Whether the two‑day delay in lodging the FIR justifies bail.
- Whether the absence of any injury despite alleged indiscriminate firing affects bail eligibility.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to co‑accused influences the petitioner's bail application.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- Section 480
- habitual offender
- FIR delay
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77217 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2024 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Nepu Yadav S/O Late Uttam Yadav R/O Village- Ariari@ Ariyari, P.S.-
Ariari@ Ariyari, District -Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
: Mr. Roop Kishan, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
: Ms. Priyanka Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115, 352, 351
and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner along
with other co-accused persons forcibly entered into the house
of the informant armed with rifles and sticks, fired shots with
intention to kill, and pelted bricks and stones. It is further
alleged that they have threatened to kill the informant’s son if
the case is not withdrawn.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is a delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R., inasmuch as,
the occurrence is said to have taken place 20.12.2024 and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77217 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
F.I.R. was lodged on 22.12.2024, for which no explanation has
been tendered by the prosecution. It is further submitted that
inspite of the allegation that there was indiscriminate firing,
neither the informant nor his son or any other inmate of the
house has sustained any injury. Further, the informant and his
family members are of criminal background and already 8 to
10 criminal cases have been registered against them and there
is a possibility of the incident being the handiwork of any rival
faction and the name of the petitioner has been arrayed as an
accused along with others for settling scores. As a matter of
fact, the petitioner works as a labour and both parties belong to
the same village and there is land dispute pending between
them. The petitioner is in custody since 26.07.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel
for the informant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail on
the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has four
criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the informant has
further contended by way of his counter affidavit that since the
petitioner is already a convicted accused, Section 480 of the
B.N.S.S. would create an impediment to grant bail to such
accused provided the Court is satisfied of to do so on account
of any other special reason.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77217 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
6. Upon hearing the rival contentions, this Court
would first clarify the legal position which is apparent from the
statute itself that Section 480 of the B.N.S.S. excludes from its
purview, the High Court and the Court of sessions and as such,
the bar created by the said provision, which is not in the form
of an absolute restraint, will not get attracted for the purpose of
present consideration of bail.
7. This Court, after having cursorily gone through
the records of the case, including the case diary, finds that the
present case is not one under Section 109 of the B.N.S. and the
allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in
nature. Further, as against allegation of indiscriminate firing
resorted to by petitioner and other, not a single person/inmate
of the house has sustained any injury and a single empty
cartridge has been seized from the place of occurrence and that
too was produced by the informant himself.
8. Taking into consideration the above-mentioned
facts and circumstances and further considering the fact that the
petitioner is a 65 years old man, who is in custody since
26.07.2025 with charge-sheet having been submitted and
cognizance taken, other accused persons enjoying the privilege of
anticipatory bail, delay caused in lodging F.I.R., coupled with no
further progress made in the case, let the above named petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77217 of 2025(5) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-II,
Sheikhpura/concerned Court below in connection with Ariari @
Ariyari P.S. Case No. 277 of 2024 subject to condition that:-
(i) One of the bailors will be his own blood
relative, preferably, father, mother, brother, sister and/or his
wife.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of
failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his
bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court
concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.