Patna High Court

Chandan Yadav @ Chandan GopeversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 5 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandan Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 394, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that on 31-10-2023 the petitioner was part of a gang that robbed an informant, but the petitioner’s name was not in the FIR and surfaced only through the confessional statements of co‑accused Sonelal Yadav and Pintu Yadav, whose disclosures led to the recovery of stolen items. The petitioner argued innocence and lack of material linking him to the offence, while the State highlighted the reliance on the co‑accused’s confession and the petitioner’s two prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the sufficiency of the material, the nature of the accusations and the petitioner’s antecedents. Concluding that the only basis for the allegation was a confessional statement and considering the petitioner’s criminal history, the court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner’s involvement is alleged solely on the basis of a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 394, 411, 414

Subjects

anticipatory bail
confessional statement
co‑accused
criminal antecedents
IPC sections 394, 411, 414
high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82871 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-428 Year-2023 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Gope S/o Yugal Yadav R/o Village - Tartar, Ward
                 No. 8, P.S - Ghoswari, District - Patna

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   05-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 411

                   and 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on

                   31.10.2023, when the informant was going to Munger, in the

                   meantime, five unknown persons surrounded him, forcibly

                   made him seat in a tempo, snatched his cash, mobile phone,

                   vehicle and other articles and thereafter, left him near an orchard

                   and fled away.

                                4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                   committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R..
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82871 of 2025(2) dt.05-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       Name of petitioner transpired in this case during course of

                       investigation merely on the basis of confessional statement of

                       co-accused person. Save and except confessional statement,

                       there is no material on record to show the complicity of this

                       petitioner in the alleged offence.

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

                       vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to

                       the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner transpired in

                       this case during course of investigation on the basis of

                       confessional statement of co-accused Sonelal Yadav and Pintu

                       Yadav on whose disclosure, stolen articles were recovered.

                       Petitioner has got two criminal antecedents.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, materials that have surfaced during course of investigation,

                       nature of accusation and criminal antecedents of the petitioner,

                       the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is

                       rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…