Patna High Court
Mintu Yadav @ Mantu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioners subject to conditions of personal appearance and non‑tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Summary
The petitioners, Mintu Yadav and Devan Yadav, were arrested in connection with a FIR alleging indiscriminate firing that resulted in a death, charged under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109 of the B.N.S. and section 27 of the Arms Act. They contended that the FIR contains only vague, omnibus allegations against them and that they are innocent, pointing out that a similarly situated co‑accused, Anil Yadav, had been granted bail by a coordinate bench. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents. The Court noted that the charges had only recently been framed, there was no specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioners, and that bail had already been granted to a co‑accused in similar circumstances. Accordingly, the Court ordered bail for both petitioners on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of personal appearance before the trial court and non‑tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite the serious nature of the offences under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act
- Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations in the FIR is sufficient to deny bail
- Whether the precedent of bail granted to a similarly situated co‑accused is determinative for the present petition
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- general allegations
- co‑accused precedent
- Arms Act
- B.N.S. sections
- trial court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80761 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
Mintu Yadav @ Mantu Yadav S/o Late Doman Yadav R/O Village-
Shankarpur Milky Tola, P.S.- Mufassil, Distt.- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 90350 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger
======================================================
Devan Yadav S/O Late Bhuvneshwar Yadav R/vill- Shankerpur, Milki Tola,
P.S.- Mufassil, Distt- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 80761 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Karuna Sahay, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 90350 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 20-02-2026 Both the cases are being taken up together as they are
arising out of some P.S.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
3. The petitioners seek bail in connection with
Muffasil P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 for the offences punishable
under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109 of the B.N.S.
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
4. Allegation in the F.I.R is that all the FIR named
accused persons including the petitioner came at the door of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80761 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
informant and made indiscriminate firing upon the informant
and his family members due to which informant’s son died
during treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in
the present case. He further submits that although the petitioners
are named in the FIR but from bare perusal of FIR, it appears
that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act or
firing attributed against the petitioners rather there is general
and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. Further, similarly
situated co-accused Anil Yadav has been granted bail by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.01.2026 passed
in Cr. Misc. No. 82209 of 2025. He further submits that charges
have been framed on 03.02.2026 and there is no likelihood of
conclusion of trial in near future. The petitioners are in custody
since 16.03.2025 and 24.03.2025 respectively and undertake to
co-operate in case/trial.
6. Application for bail of petitioner Mintu Yadav is
opposed by learned APP of the State on the ground that he has
three criminal antecedents. In response, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he is on bail in the aforesaid cases.
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80761 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
circumstances of the case and also considering the general and
omnibus nature of allegations against the petitioner coupled
with the fact that similarly situated co-accused has been granted
bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and charges have been
framed, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on
each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court concerned where the case is
pending/Successor Court in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case
No.79 of 2025, with the following conditions:
i. The petitioners shall remain physically present in
the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the
trial. In case the petitioners are absent on the two consecutive
dates without sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court would be
at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
ii. If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…