Patna High Court
Indra Kamal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, granting it subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Indra Kamal Yadav and Pradeep Kumar Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case where co‑accused Deepak Kumar was alleged to have outraged the modesty of a minor and later threatened the informant’s son with a pistol. The FIR listed several serious offences under the Bihar Negotiable (B.N.S.) statutes, the POCSO Act and the Arms Act, but the petitioners argued that the allegations against them were merely general and omnibus, with no specific act attributed to them. They contended that they were implicated solely because of familial ties to Deepak Kumar and highlighted their clean antecedents. The State and the informant opposed the bail, insisting on the seriousness of the charges. Considering the lack of specific accusations against the petitioners and their clean record, the Court granted anticipatory bail, subject to a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the general and omnibus nature of the accusations against them
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- general and omnibus accusation
- clean antecedents
- POCSO Act
- Arms Act
- Section 482
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8100 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2025 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Indra Kamal Yadav S/O Upendra Yadav R/O Village- Mahinathpur, P.S-
Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.
2. Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Yadav @ Pradeep Yadav S/O Thakai
Yadav R/O Village- Mahinathpur, P.S- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Smt. Paro Devi W/O Vinod Yadav R/O Village- Mahinathpur, P.S- Rajnagar,
Distt.- Madhubani.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
Ms. Nitu Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Opposite
Party No. 2.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 74, 76, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.,
Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 25(a) of the
Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.10.2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8100 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
at about 10 AM, co-accused Deepak Kumar tried to outrage the
modesty of minor daughter of informant while she was alone at
the field. It is further alleged that thereafter, all the F.I.R. named
accused persons, including these petitioners, intercepted son of
informant on the point of pistol, made firing in the air, snatched
his motorcycle and threatened.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is
apparent that specific accusation of outraging the modesty of
minor daughter of informant is against co-accused Deepak
Kumar. So far as these petitioners are concerned, there is
general and omnibus nature of allegations and no specific
accusation of any overt act has been alleged against them.
Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely
because they happen to be relatives of co-accused Deepak
Kumar. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement
recorded under Section 180 of the B.N.S.S. has alleged that it
was co-accused Deepak Kumar who outraged her modesty.
Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant/Opposite Party No. 2 have vehemently opposed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8100 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and clean
antecedents of the petitioners, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners is allowed.
7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
petitioners 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 Sessions
Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), District-
Madhubani in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 455 of
2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the B.N.S.S..
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…