Patna High Court
Mantu Yadav @ Mantu KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is not to be granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Mantu Yadav applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS‑181/2025) involving offences under several sections of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant alleged that Yadav called him, a confrontation ensued and Yadav fired a weapon, injuring the informant’s son. Yadav contended that the informant had actually fired at him, that the injury report was fabricated, and that he was falsely implicated. The State and the informant opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the charges and Yadav’s antecedent of nine prior cases. The Court, after considering the evidence of injury and the petitioner’s criminal history, declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the alleged offences and his prior criminal record
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- false implication
- prior criminal record
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78191 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya
======================================================
Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Kumar S/O Dharmendra Yadav R/O Vill.- Kandi
Nawada, P.S.- Chandauti, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Chandauti P.S. Case No.181/2025, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 117(2), 190,
126(2), 115(2) and 109 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 nine cases and the informant alleges
that Mantu (petitioner) called him on 19.05.2025 at 11.45 A.M.,
accordingly informant along with his son went to meet him,
where named accused persons were also present from before,
further accused persons refused to return the amount which the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78191 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
2/3
informant had given for land and when his son confronted,
Mantu (petitioner) fired, causing injury on mouth of his son.
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 it was the side of the
informant who fired at the petitioner causing firearm injury
leading to hospitalization at Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital,
Gaya. It is further submitted that though informant alleges that
petitioner fired causing firearm injury to the son of the
informant but then the son of the informant was taken to a
private hospital and his injury report was manipulated though he
had not suffered any such injury.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
informant submits that from perusal of Para-5 of the order
impugned, it would manifest that same records that after
perusing the case record, it was found that the victim suffered
firearm injury in his mouth and a lacerated wound was found at
right neck with bullet and the same was removed from the neck.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78191 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
3/3
informant and also taking into consideration the fact that
petitioner has antecedent of nine cases, the Court is not inclined
to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…