Patna High Court
Jay Krishna Yadav @ Jai Krishna Kumar @ Jay Krishna KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to petitioner No. 4 but granted to petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, five members of the Yadav family, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bihar Special Penal Code (BNS) for alleged firing, assault, and conspiracy. They contended that the allegations were false, that injuries were either non‑existent or caused by others, and that they had prior criminal antecedents unrelated to the present charges. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the grievous injury to Kalyani Devi and the seriousness of the offences. Justice Satyavrata Verma denied anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 4 (Rajaram Yadav) on account of the alleged assault with an iron rod causing a head injury, but granted bail to petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 subject to a bond of Rs 25,000 and two sureties each, conditional on surrender within six weeks. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Special Statutes.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to each petitioner under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the alleged assault causing grievous injury justifies denial of anticipatory bail for petitioner No. 4
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- grievous injury
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Bihar Special Penal Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87783 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2025 Thana- BIHRA District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Jay Krishna Yadav @ Jai Krishna Kumar @ Jay Krishna Kumar S/o Late
Sitaram Yadav R/o Village - Laxminiya, Ward No. 1, P.S - Bihira, District -
Saharsa
2. Dilip Yadav @ Dilip Kumar S/o Dukhi Yadav @ Dukha @ Dukha Yadav
R/o Village - Laxminiya, Ward No. 1, P.S - Bihira, District - Saharsa
3. Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithilesh Kumar S/o Dukhi Yadav @ Dukha @ Dukha
Yadav R/o Village - Laxminiya, Ward No. 1, P.S - Bihira, District - Saharsa
4. Rajaram Yadav @ Rajaram Kumar S/o Sitaram Yadav R/o Village -
Laxminiya, Ward No. 1, P.S - Bihira, District - Saharsa
5. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Yadav @ Sunil S/o Devanand Yadav R/o Village -
Laxminiya, Ward No. 1, P.S - Bihira, District - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
190, 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 329(3), 352 and 351(2) of
the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners no. 1, 4 and 5 have antecedent of one case, petitioner
no. 2 has antecedent of three cases and petitioner no. 3 has
antecedent of four cases and the informant alleges that on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87783 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
08.03.2025, at about 03:30 p.m., the accused persons came and
Jay Krishna Yadav (petitioner no. 1) and Dilip Yadav (petitioner
no. 2) fired at her son, namely, Manoj Yadav but he managed to
save himself and thereafter Bhupendra Yadav fired at Kalyani
Devi @ Sudama Devi but missed. Further, Rajaram Yadav
(petitioner no. 4) assaulted Kalyani Devi @ Sudama Devi by an
iron rod causing injury on her head. Thereafter, the accused
thought that Kalyani Devi @ Sudama Devi died, as such, the
accused persons hatched a conspiracy and Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Yadav @ Sunil (petitioner no. 5) shot Jay Krishna Yadav on his
thigh so that a case is instituted against the informant and her
side. Further, on orders of Dukha Yadav, women accused looted
cash and jewellery.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that as far as petitioners no.
1 and 2 are concerned, the allegation against them of firing is
ornamental as no one was injured. It is next submitted that no
specific allegation of assault or firing is alleged against the
petitioner no. 3 but then it is fairly submitted that as far as
petitioner no. 4 is concerned, he is alleged to have assaulted
Kalyani Devi @ Sudama Devi by an iron rod causing injury on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87783 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
her head. It is also submitted that the informant’s son shot Jay
Krishna Yadav but then informant very wisely implicated Sunil
Kumar @ Sunil Yadav @ Sunil (petitioner no. 5) alleging that
after the accused thought that Kalyani Devi @ Sudama Devi
was dead, they hatched a conspiracy and Sunil Kumar @ Sunil
Yadav @ Sunil fired at Jay Krishna Yadav. It is further
submitted that from the side of the petitioners Bihra P.S. Case
No. 52 of 2025 has been instituted against the informant and her
side wherein it is alleged that it was Bhabesh who fired causing
firearm injury to Jay Krishna Yadav. It is next submitted that
why Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Yadav @ Sunil (petitioner no. 5)
would have shot Jay Krishna Yadav when it is alleged that he
had come from the side of accused persons at the place of
occurrence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the injury
suffered by Kalyani Devi @ Sudama Devi has been opined to be
grievous as recorded in the order impugned and the petitioners
are alleged to have fired.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner no. 4, namely, Rajaram Yadav @ Rajaram
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87783 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
Kumar, accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
7. As far as other petitioners are concerned,
considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners no. 1 to 3 and 5, let the petitioners no. 1 to 3 and 5
above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the
learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/Successor Court in
connection with Bihra P.S. Case No. 58 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…