Patna High Court
Ghutar Yadav @ Abhinandan Yadav @ Nandan Kumar @ Nandan YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted because the petitioners were not originally named in the FIR and there was insufficient material evidence to justify continued detention.
Summary
The petitioners, three accused in a case under Sections 140(3), 103(1), 61(2) and 238(A) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, were in custody since 15 July 2025. They contended that they were not named in the original FIR and were later added only on the basis of a petition filed by an informant, with no substantive material linking them to the offence. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges. The High Court noted the lack of direct evidence, the clean antecedent of two petitioners and the prior acquittal of the third, and consequently granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The order directs that bail may be cancelled if conditions are breached.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused were not originally named in the FIR and were later added based on an informant's petition.
- Whether the presence of prior criminal antecedent or a previous acquittal affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the prosecution's opposition alone suffices to deny bail in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103(1), 140(3), 238(A), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- FIR
- addition of accused
- antecedent verification
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84588 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Ghutar Yadav @ Abhinandan Yadav @ Nandan Kumar @ Nandan Yadav
S/O Nirodh Yadav Resident of Village- Babraha, P. S - Parbatta, District -
Khagaria
2. Mantu Yadav @ Mantun Yadav Son of Hirday Narayan Yadav Resident of
Village- Babraha, P. S - Parbatta, District - Khagaria
3. Anuj Kumar @ Batohi Yadav @ Anuj Yadav Son of Dinesh Yadav. Resident
of Village- Babraha, P. S - Parbatta, District - Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seeks bail who are in custody since
15.07.2025 in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 57 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 12.02.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 140(3), 103(1), 61(2) and 238(A) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the son of the
informant was traceless and he was last seen with co-accused
Golu Kumar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84588 of 2025(3) dt.17-01-2026
2/3
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have clean antecedent and petitioner no.
3 carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but
he has been acquitted in the said case by the learned Trial Court
and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He
further submits that initially the petitioners were not named in
the F.I.R and their name has been transpired during investigation
on the basis of a petition filed by the informant on 18.02.2025.
Thereafter, the petitioners' name have been added as accused
persons. He further submits that their names have been
transpired on the basis of suspicion and except the aforesaid, no
other material has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the petitioners in the present occurrence. He
further submits that the police after investigation submitted the
charge sheet against the petitioners. The petitioners are in
custody since 15.07.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R and their name has
been transpired on the basis of petition filed by the informant,
let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84588 of 2025(3) dt.17-01-2026
3/3
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned ADJM-I, Khagaria in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case
No. 57 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners 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 petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
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)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…