Patna High Court
Umesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Yadav family, sought bail fearing arrest in connection with PS Mirganj Case No. 83 of 2025, arising from an FIR alleging assault with an iron rod and theft of a gold locket during a land dispute. They claimed a clean antecedent and asserted that the allegations were fabricated and that no specific assault was proved against them. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The court noted the lack of specific evidence of assault, the simple nature of the injury, and the petitioners' clean record, and therefore ordered bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bail order also imposed conditions regarding cooperation with the trial, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The petition was thus disposed with bail granted.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail pending trial for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a specific charge of assault sufficient to deny bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 352, 438(2), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- assault
- theft
- land dispute
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86706 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-83 Year-2025 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Umesh Yadav S/o- Late Sadhu Yadav Resident of Village- Dumariya, W.No-
11, PS- Mirganj District- Purnea
2. Bambam Kumar @ Diwakar @ Diwakar Kumar S/o- Umesh Yadav
Resident of Village- Dumariya, W.No-11, PS- Mirganj District- Purnea
3. Bhola Yadav S/o- Late Sadhu Yadav @ Sadadhu Yadav Resident of Village-
Dumariya, W.No-11, PS- Mirganj District- Purnea
4. Shanti Devi W/o- Umesh Yadav Resident of Village- Dumariya, W.No-11,
PS- Mirganj District- Purnea
5. Arti Kumari D/o- Umesh Yadav Resident of Village- Dumariya, W.No-11,
PS- Mirganj District- Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
16.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), and 352 of the BNS.
3. As per the First Information Report, due to keeping
straw of wheat in a tina house situated at the door of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86706 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
informant, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons
assaulted to the informant with iron rod on his head causing
head injury. It is further alleged that the co-accused Ajit Kumar
snatched 10 gram of gold locket from the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged in the
F.I.R., rather due to some land dispute the present occurrence
has taken place. There is case and counter case between the
parties and apart from the aforesaid there is no specific
allegation of assault or overt act rather there is general and
omnibus allegation against these petitioners. The injury report of
the informant suggests that injury is simple in nature caused by
hard and blunt substance.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
the petitioners have clean antecedent and no specific allegation
of assault is against these petitioners and the injury report of the
person injured is simple in nature and due to land dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86706 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
between the parties, let the petitioners, above named, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, in
connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 83 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86706 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
khushbu/-
U T
Checking your session…