Patna High Court
Chandan Yadav @ Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to monetary and procedural conditions, as the prosecution failed to establish a specific overt act linking him to the alleged offences.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandan Yadav, was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 126(2), 109, 352, 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he and co‑accused stopped an informant and that co‑accused Jitendra Kumar fired at the informant. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that no incriminating material was found on him, and that the charge sheet did not allege any specific overt act by him, only by the co‑accused. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s fifteen prior criminal antecedents, albeit all on bail. The Court examined the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, the period of custody already endured, and the principle that bail may be granted in the absence of material incriminating the accused. Accordingly, the Court inclined to grant bail, imposing a cash bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties and conditions regarding family surety, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and non‑commission of similar offences. The bail order was conditioned on the trial court’s power to cancel the bond if any condition is violated.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the absence of specific incriminating material against the petitioner justifies release on bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 126(2), 3(5), 352
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
- prior convictions
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79484 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI RAIL P.S. District- Khagaria
======================================================
Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Son of Sanjay Yadav @ Jawahar Yadav
R/o Chak Hussaini(Khutiya), P.S. - Mansi, District - Khagaria, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aditya Vikram, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Srishti Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mansi
Rail P.S. Case No. 02 of 2025, instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 352, 3(5) of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that while the
informant was coming home with his colleagues, in the
meantime, the petitioner along with other co-accused person
stopped them, started abusing and co-accused Jitendra Kumar
fired upon the informant which hit his below left waist.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79484 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and
charge has already been framed against the petitioner. No
incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submitted that no specific overt act has been alleged against
the petitioner. It is further submitted that specific allegation of
firing is levelled against co-accused, namely, Jito @ Jitendra
Kumar. The petitioner has been arrested only on the basis of
suspicion. The petitioner is in custody since 23.04.2025 and has
got fifteen criminal antecedents in which he is on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and taking into account the period of custody
undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail
to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court
below/concerned Court in connection with Mansi Rail P.S. Case
No. 02 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79484 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
(I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of
the family of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall appear on each and every date
fixed at the trial and shall not remain absent on two consecutive
dates without sufficient cause.
(III) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
or the witnesses during the trial.
(IV) Petitioner shall not commit offence of similar
nature in future.
If any of the above conditions are violated, the Trial
Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…