Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ram Bodh Yadav @ Ram Bodh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, subject to bail bond and conditions.

Summary

The petitioners, seven members of the Yadav family, applied for anticipatory bail in a case (PS Jaynagar, Case No. 268 of 2019) where they were alleged to have assaulted an informant and his family with lathis, iron rods and to have stolen cash and jewellery, offences punishable under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. One petitioner (No. 6) had already been arrested, and his bail application was withdrawn. The remaining petitioners argued that the allegations were vague, arose from a petty dispute, and that similarly situated co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench in 2021. The State opposed the bail, contending that the accusations were serious. The court, noting the general and omnibus nature of the accusations and the principle of parity, granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties each, under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious nature of the alleged offences
  • Whether the allegations are sufficiently specific to deny bail
  • Whether the principle of parity with co‑accused previously granted bail applies

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Section 482 CrPC
  • assault
  • theft
  • parity
  • general and omnibus accusation
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8090 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2019 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
           1.     Ram Bodh Yadav @ Ram Bodh Kumar Yadav S/o- Prayag Yadav @ Ram
                  Prakash Yadav @ Pragas Yadav Village- Kamalabari, Dhouli Tole, PS-
                  Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
           2.    Durgesh Yadav @ Durgesh Kumar S/o- Prayag Yadav @ Ram Prakash
                 Yadav @ Pragas Yadav Village- Kamalabari, Dhouli Tole, PS- Jaynagar,
                 District- Madhubani
           3.    Dinesh Yadav S/o- Sukan Yadav Village- Kamalabari, Dhouli Tole, PS-
                 Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
           4.    Vijay Yadav S/o- Amrit Yadav Village- Kamalabari, Dhouli Tole, PS-
                 Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
           5.    Shiv Kumar @ Shiv Kumar Yada S/o- Prakash Yadav @ Prayag Yadav
                 Village- Kamalabari, Dhouli Tole, PS- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
           6.    Ram Chandra Yadav S/o- Late Ram Sewak Yadav Village- Kamalabari,
                 Dhouli Tole, PS- Jaynagar, District- Madhubani
           7.    Batohi Yadav S/o- Ramashish Yadav Village- Kamalabari, Dhouli Tole, PS-
                 Jaynagar, District- Madhubani

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :       Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   31-03-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf

                   of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this anticipatory

                   bail application with regard to Petitioner No. 6, namely Ram

                   Chandra Yadav, as during pendency of this case, Petitioner No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8090 of 2026(3) dt.31-03-2026
                                            2/4




          6 has already been arrested and the same has become

          infructuous.

                       3. Permission, as prayed for, is accorded.

                       4. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application with

          regard to Petitioner No. 6 stands dismissed as withdrawn.

                       5. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 apprehend their

          arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under

          Sections 447, 341, 342, 323, 307, 354B, 379, 504 and 34 of the

          Indian Penal Code.

                       6. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the

          F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners,

          abused and assaulted informant and his family members with

          lathi, farsa and iron rod due to which they sustained injuries. It

          is further alleged that the accused persons also snatched cash

          and gold jewellery from informant and his family members.

                       7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and

          have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, on account of

          petty dispute, simple maar-peet took place between the parties

          in which both sides sustained injuries. There is case and

          counter-case. Allegation of assault is general and omnibus and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8090 of 2026(3) dt.31-03-2026
                                            3/4




          no specific accusation of overt act has been alleged against these

          petitioners. Similarly situated co-accused persons have already

          been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate

          Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 16.11.2021 passed

          in Cr. Misc. No. 40730 of 2020.

                       8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

          the petitioners.

                       9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and claim based

          on parity, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner

          Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 is allowed.

                       10. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender

          within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named

          Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 be enlarged on bail on

          furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned     Additional        Chief     Judicial    Magistrate,   District-

          Madhubani in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 268 of

          2019, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of

          the B.N.S.S..
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8090 of 2026(3) dt.31-03-2026
                                                         4/4




                                    11. With the aforesaid directions, this application

                       stands disposed of.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.