Patna High Court
Akhilesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Petitioners 1 and 3 were granted pre‑arrest bail, while petitioners 2 and 4 were denied bail.
Summary
The petitioners applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that they were falsely implicated after an encroachment drive during which they were said to have attacked an informant with a firearm and sharp weapons. The petitioners claimed innocence, clean antecedents, and that they were agnates of the informant, asserting that only petitioners 2 and 4 faced specific allegations while 1 and 3 faced only general allegations. The State opposed the bail. The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, petitioners 1 and 3 were entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and verification of their antecedents, but denied bail to petitioners 2 and 4 due to the specific allegations against them. The Court directed the District Court to verify the criminal records of petitioners 1 and 3 and stipulated that the bail order would lapse if adverse antecedents were found. The application was disposed of, granting bail to petitioners 1 and 3 and refusing it to 2 and 4.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act
- Whether the presence of specific allegations against certain accused precludes the grant of pre‑arrest bail
- Whether a clean criminal antecedent suffices for the grant of pre‑arrest bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- clean antecedent
- specific allegation
- Arms Act
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91241 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
======================================================
1. Akhilesh Kumar S/o- Suvash Yadav @ Subhash Yadav R/O Village- Malti
PS- Rajan District- Banka
2. Pintu Kumar S/o- Suvas Yadav @ Subhash Yadav R/O Village- Malti PS-
Rajan District- Bank
3. Suvas Yadav @ Subhash Yadav S/o- Upendra Yadav R/O Village- Malti PS-
Rajan District- Banka
4. Upendra Yadav S/o- Late Mahavir Yadav R/O Village- Malti PS- Rajan
District- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vibhakar Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Vibhakar Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Anuj Kumar
Shrivastava, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Rajaun P.S. Case No. 158/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2),
352 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, after an
encroachment drive, the petitioners abused and attacked the
informant with a firearm and sharp weapons, causing injuries to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91241 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
him and his family.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners submitted that the
petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in
the present case. The petitioners and the informant are agnates.
There is general and omnibus allegation leveled against the
petitioner nos. 1 and 3, however, specific allegation is against
the petitioner nos. 2 and 4. The petitioners have clean
antecedent. On these grounds, the petitioners seek to be released
on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, there is general and omnibus allegation leveled
against the petitioner nos. 1 and 3, I am of the opinion that
petitioner nos. 1 and 3, having clean antecedent, have, prima
facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioner nos. 1 and 3, above named, are
directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91241 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned District Court where
the case is pending / Concerned Court in connection with
Rajaun P.S. Case No. 158/2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 and if
it is found that the petitioners nos. 1 and 3 are involved in
some other cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3
of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its
force.
9. So far as, the petitioner nos. 2 and 4 are concerned,
considering the direct allegation against them, I am not inclined
to enlarge the petitioner nos.2 and 4 on pre-arrest bail.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…