Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Shankar Yadav @ GoluversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Shankar Yadav @ Golu was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 308(5) and 111(1) of the B.N.S., alleging that a call from a mobile number demanded a ransom of Rs. 50 lakh and threatened to shoot the informant. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the mobile number used belonged to a woman named Manju Devi and that he had no involvement in the alleged demand. He also highlighted that he had been in judicial custody since 21‑12‑2024 and that the only allegation was the demand, with no money actually exchanged. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. After hearing both sides, the Court decided to grant bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to the condition of cooperation in the trial and possible cancellation for non‑appearance on two consecutive dates.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case of alleged extortion and threat under Sections 308(5) and 111(1) of the B.N.S. considering the evidence and the petitioner's claim of innocence

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • extortion
  • threat to life
  • criminal antecedent
  • judicial custody
  • Section 308(5)
  • Section 111(1)

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91292 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2024 Thana- Salmari District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Shankar Yadav @ Golu, S/o Byanjan Yadav @ Vyanjan Prasad Yadav @
                 Vyanjan Kumar Yadav, Resident of Chhorgaraya Tola Mohabbatpur, P.S.-
                 Salmari, District- Katihar
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   30-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Salmari P.S. Case No. 102 of 2024 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 308(5) and 111(1) of B.N.S.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that a call was

                   made on the mobile of the informant from mobile no. 9910114969

                   and was asking for ransom of Rs. 50 lakhs or else he will shoot the

                   informant.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

                   offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been

                   framed in this case as he is having criminal antecedent of 10 cases.

                   The number from which call was made does not belong to him.

                   From perusal of the order of learned trial Court, it transpires that
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91292 of 2025(2) dt.30-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       the number belongs to one Manju Devi. Learned counsel for the

                       petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not related in any way

                       with Manju Devi. It has also been submitted that only allegation is

                       that demand was made but no cash was handed over. Petitioner is

                       languishing in judicial custody since 21.12.2024.

                                    5. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently

                       opposed the application for bail.

                                    6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                       considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                       inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                       petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond

                       of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the

                       like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Katihar

                       in connection with Salmari P.S. Case No. 102 of 2024 with the

                       condition that petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and bail

                       bond of the petitioner will be cancelled if the petitioner shall

                       not present for two consecutive dates without any cogent

                       reason.


                                                         (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.