Patna High Court
Piyush Yadav @ Ghanshyam YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1, holding that his clean antecedent and the general, non‑specific nature of the allegations warranted bail under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, three Yadav brothers, filed an anticipatory bail application in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioners No.2 and No.3 withdrew their applications, which the court allowed. Petitioner No.1, claiming a clean criminal record, argued that the FIR allegations were vague, politically motivated, and that the alleged firing of rounds was merely in the air with no injury. The State opposed the bail. Considering the clean antecedent and the general nature of the accusations, the court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, and conditioned it on compliance with Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner No.1 despite the FIR containing serious offences under the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and the Arms Act.
- Whether the withdrawal of anticipatory bail applications by petitioners No.2 and No.3 affects the consideration of petitioner No.1's application.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 109, 115, 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- clean antecedent
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Arms Act
- political dispute
- withdrawal of application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80511 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-560 Year-2024 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Piyush Yadav @ Ghanshyam Yadav Son of Nakku Yadav @ Nanhku Yadav
R/o Village - Bela, P.S. - Dhangi (Barachatti), Dist. - Gaya.
2. Rangu Yadav @ Rangu Kumar Son of Dinesh Yadav R/o Village - Mahuain,
P.S. - Dhangi (Barachatti), Dist. - Gaya.
3. Uday Yadav Son of Ishwar Yadav R/o Village - Mushahra, Bela, P.S. -
Dhangai (Barachatti), Dist. - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A,P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, seeks
permission to make rectification at para 3 of the anticipatory bail
application as it has been submitted that inadvertently at para 3 it has
been pleaded that petitioner no. 2 has got two criminal antecedent
when it ought to have been petitioner no. 3 and petitioner no. 3 has
got five criminal antecedent when it ought to have been petitioner
no.2.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing
vehemently for sometimes realizing his difficulty, seeks permission
to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with respect to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80511 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
petitioner no. 2 and 3, namely, Rangu Yadav @ Rangu Kumar and
Uday Yadav.
5. Permission is accorded.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is
dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner no. 2 and 3.
7. It is made clear that if petitioner no. 2 and 3 surrender
and seek regular bail, the learned trial court shall consider the case on
its own merit without being prejudiced by the fact that petitioner no.
2 and 3 before this Court withdrew their anticipatory bail application.
8. The petitioner no. 1 apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115,
109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that
petitioner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on account of prevailing political dispute, the accused
persons including the petitioner no. 1 came on 24.12.2024 and
abused Sanjay, Ajay and Vikash, thereafter, Mundrika fired 4-5
rounds at the gate of the informant and thereafter the accused persons
dashed her on the ground and when she disclosed that Sanjay, Ajay
and Vikash are not at home, the accused persons left threatening that
Sanjay and Vikash would be killed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that
petitioner no. 1 has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80511 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that allegation against the
petitioner no. 1 is general and omnibus in nature and only to give
seriousness to the case, it is alleged that 4-5 rounds was fired in the
air when no one was injured.
11. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 1.
12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner no. 1 and taking into consideration the fact that
petitoner no. 1 is a person with clean antecedent, let the petitioner no.
1 above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
pending/Successor Court in connection with Barachatti P.S. Case No.
560 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…