Patna High Court

Krishna Yadav @ Krishandeo YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 April 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

The court confirmed the provisional bail, effectively granting regular bail to the petitioner while keeping the same bail bonds.

Summary

Krishna Yadav petitioned for regular bail in a complaint case involving serious offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 406, 120B, 379, 409 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner's brother‑in‑law, Rekha Devi (Opposite Party No.2), alleged that he had tortured her and contested a partition of property, refusing to sign the panchnama that showed her one‑third share being separated. The court considered the panchnama and the fact that the partition dispute was a civil matter, not directly related to the criminal charges. It confirmed the provisional bail previously granted, ordering the petitioner to remain on the same bail bonds. The court advised that if the opposite party is dissatisfied with the panchnama, she may file a partition suit, and clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not affect the trial.

Issues considered

Whether regular bail can be granted to the petitioner despite the gravity of the offences alleged.
Whether the existence of a partition dispute and the panchnama affect the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 323, 379, 406, 409, 498A, 504

Subjects

regular bail
IPC offences
partition dispute
panchnama
Arms Act
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85336 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2014 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 Krishna Yadav @ Krishandeo Yadav S/o Masudan Yadav R/o village -
                 Sohjana, P.S - Jhajha, District - Jamui, Bihar

                                                                                ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Rekha Devi W/o Late Yogendra Prasad Yadav R/o village - Sohjana, P.O and
                 P.S - Jhajha, District - Jamui, Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar
                 For the O.P. No. 2       :      Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   06-04-2026                  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

                   learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the O.P.

                   No. 2.

                                2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

                   Complaint Case No. 210 of 2014 instituted for the offence under

                   Section(s) 498A, 323, 504, 406, 120B, 379 and 409 of the IPC

                   and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. Pursuant to the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by

                   the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the learned counsel for the

                   petitioner has produced a copy of the Panchnama filed in the

                   Court below to show that the one-third share of O.P. No. 2 has

                   been separated. It is, however, submitted that O.P. No. 2 is not
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85336 of 2025(4) dt.06-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      ready to accept the same and has refused to sign the document.

                                   4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits

                      that the share of the complainant is much more than what has

                      been allotted to her; therefore, she is not accepting the partition.

                                   5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the

                      brother-in-law (devar) of the O.P. No. 2 and he has tortured the

                      O.P. No. 2.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                      and in view of the Panchama produced by the learned counsel

                      for the petitioner, I am inclined to confirm the provisional bail

                      granted to the petitioner by order dated 07.01.2026. The

                      petitioner shall remain on the same bail bonds.

                                   7. However, if O.P. No. 2 is dissatisfied with the

                      Panchnama, she may seek appropriate remedy by filing a

                      Partition Suit in the District Court.

                                   8. It is made clear that any observation made herein is

                      prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of

                      adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations

                      shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case

                      and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any

                      manner.



                                                              (Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…