Patna High Court
Malik Yadav @ Himashu Yadav @ Mallik YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail, holding that the lack of material evidence and the petitioners' prior antecedents alone do not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Malik Yadav and Ramvinay Yadav, sought bail fearing arrest in a case alleging indiscriminate firing on an informant under sections of the Bihar Non‑Specific Act, 2023 and the Arms Act. They argued that a long‑standing enmity between the families, the delayed filing of the FIR, and the absence of any cartridge evidence cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged firing despite no injuries. The Court noted that mere prior criminal antecedents cannot justify denial of bail absent concrete material linking the petitioners to the offence. Consequently, the Court granted bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Non‑Specific Act.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite charges of indiscriminate firing under the Bihar Non‑Specific Act, 2023 and the Arms Act.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of forensic evidence, and prior enmity affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- indiscriminate firing
- Arms Act
- prior enmity
- delay in FIR
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91824 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2025 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Malik Yadav @ Himashu Yadav @ Mallik Yadav Son of Late Khulat Yadav
Resident Of Village- Alauli, Ps- Alauli, Dist -Khagaria
2. Ramvinay Yadav Son of Late Khult Yadav Resident Of Village- Alauli, Ps-
Alauli, Dist -Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and
learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Alauli P.S. Case No.93 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 329(4), 109, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioners along with others
is of causing indiscriminate firing upon the informant, who
anyhow unhurt and confined in his house.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that
there is a long-standing enmity between the parties. Previously,
the father of the petitioners was allegedly killed by the
informant and others for which they were made named accused
later on. It is alleged that two of the brothers of the informant were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91824 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
killed by the petitioners and others and there is an FIR in this
regard. On account of the aforesaid reason, both the parties are
bickering over the previous enmity and there is every chance of
false implication of the petitioners as the enmity is a double
edged weapon which cuts both the sides. The alleged occurrence
took place on 01.03.2025, but the present FIR came to be
instituted on 05.03.2025 and the delay has not been explained.
Moreover in the said occurrence, none has sustained any injury.
However, only in order to wreak vengeance and put pressure to
withdraw the earlier case, the present FIR came to be instituted.
During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has
also not found any empty cartridge from the place of occurrence
which also create a doubt over the prosecution case. Though, the
petitioners bear four criminal antecedent but all the cases are the
outcome of enmity and now the petitioners are on bail in all the
cases.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the
informant was fortunate enough that he did not sustain any
bullet injury. However, there is specific accusation of causing
indiscriminate firing against the petitioners.
6. Having considered the submissions set forth by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91824 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the omnibus accusation of indiscriminate firing causing no
injury to anyone, besides the delay in lodging of the FIR as well
as the previous enmity between the parties as also the fact that
during the course of investigation, no material has been
collected suggesting the occurrence of firing and moreover mere
criminal antecedent of a person cannot be the sole ground to
reject the prayer for bail unless there is other cogent materials
suggesting his involvement, let the above named petitioners, be
released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before
the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from
today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection
with Alauli P.S. Case No.93 of 2025, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioners.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…