Patna High Court
Chandrdev Yadav @ MatkuriyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Summary
The petitioner, Chandrdev Yadav, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS‑179/2025) alleging his involvement in a murder under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others killed the deceased. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was not the assailant and therefore entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court, noting the seriousness of the allegations, declined to grant anticipatory bail. The application was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail, which the lower court will consider on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the serious allegations under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- Arms Act
- BNS
- serious allegations
- surrender
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90461 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2025 Thana- BHAPTIAHI District- Supaul
======================================================
Chandrdev Yadav @ Matkuriya S/o- Radheshyam Yadav R/v- Murli Ward no
05, Ps- Bhaptiyahi Dist- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Naresh Kumar Mehta
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 27-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Bhaptiyahi P.S. Case No. 179 of 2025
registered for the offence under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the
BNS and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and
others are said to have killed the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is not the assailant of the deceased and therefore
he deserves anticipatory bail.
5. Considering the serious allegations levelled
against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90461 of 2025(3) dt.27-02-2026
2/2
6. Accordingly, this application for anticipatory
bail is dismissed.
7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the
Court below within four weeks from today and pray for regular
bail failing which the Superintendent of Police, Supaul will take
all steps for arrest of the petitioner. If the petitioner surrenders
and prays for regular bail then the Court below will consider the
same on its own merits without being prejudiced by the fact that
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has been
dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this order this order be
communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Supaul through
FAX for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Vikas/-
U
Checking your session…