Patna High Court
Jagdish YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
In the absence of a specific allegation against the petitioner and given his clean antecedent, the court held that bail must be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Jagdish Yadav, was arrested on 31 July 2025 in connection with a FIR dated 8 May 2025 alleging offences under Sections 103 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR alleges that co‑accused fired at the informant’s father, causing his death, while the petitioner is said only to have been a member of the unlawful assembly with no specific allegation of firing. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwary, pleaded that he has a clean antecedent and that the FIR contains a vague, omnibus allegation against him, further noting an unexplained one‑day delay in filing the FIR. The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed bail. The Court, noting the absence of a specific charge against the petitioner and his clean record, granted bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be accepted without delay for verification purposes.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite allegations under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and the Arms Act.
- Whether the FIR contains a specific allegation against the petitioner sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the one‑day delay in filing the FIR affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- unlawful assembly
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- clean antecedent
- FIR delay
- general allegation
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82832 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2025 Thana- SISWAN District- Siwan
======================================================
Jagdish Yadav Son of Giradhari Yadav R/o Village- Suwahi Noniapatti, P.S.-
Siswan, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
For the informant : Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
: Mr.Sumit Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. B.N.Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 31-01-2026 Heard Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
31.07.2025 in connection with Siswan P.S. Case No. 153 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 08.05.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 103 and 3(5) of BNS,2023 and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per FIR, allegation against co-accused persons,
namely, Banti Tiwary @ Anish Tiwari and Abhishek Pandey is
that they fired which hit on the chest of the father of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82832 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
2/4
informant, who fell down. The informant brought his father at
Referal Hospital, Siswan where the Doctor declared him dead.
The petitioner was only the member of the unlawful assembly.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent. The allegation
as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner
has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. From a
bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the date of occurrence as
alleged in the FIR is 07.05.2025 but the present FIR has been
instituted on 08.05.2025 after delay of one day without giving
any explanation of delay. From a bare perusal of the FIR it
appears that the FIR is in two parts. In 1st part, there is specific
allegation of firing attributed against co-accused persons,
namely, Banti Tiwary @ Anish Tiwari and Abhishek Pande in
the FIR and in 2nd part, there is general and omnibus allegation
against all the accused persons including the petitioner that they
have also fired upon the victim and the police, after
investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and
the petitioner is in custody since 31.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned
A.P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82832 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean
antecedent, there is no specific allegation of firing attributed
against the petitioner in the FIR rather there is general and
omnibus allegation against the petitioner in the FIR, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-VII,
Siwan in connection with Siswan P.S. Case No. 153 of 2025,
with the following conditions:-
(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82832 of 2025(3) dt.31-01-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…