Patna High Court

Bipin Yadav @ Bipin KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ALOK KUMAR SINHA

Holding

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was not granted to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Bipin Yadav, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in connection with a case (Jhajha P.S. Case No. 105 of 2021) involving alleged offences of robbery, kidnapping, and assault under various IPC sections. The prosecution alleged that Yadav, along with others, entered the complainant's house armed, threatened the family, stole jewellery and Rs. 5 lakh, and abducted the minor daughter. Yadav contended he has a clean record and was falsely implicated due to a neighbour dispute. The learned court examined the seriousness of the allegations, noting the involvement of firearms, large monetary theft, and kidnapping of a minor. Concluding that the allegations were grave, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail and directed the petitioner to surrender within six weeks and apply for regular bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the alleged offences under the IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 342, 354(A), 366(A), 380, 452, 506

Subjects

anticipatory bail
CrPC Section 438
Indian Penal Code
robbery
kidnapping
serious offences
bail denial

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91973 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2021 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
                 Bipin Yadav @ Bipin Kumar S/O Ramotar Yadav R/O Vill.- Bhikha, P.S.-
                 Jhajha, Dist.- Jamui
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanju Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   15-01-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 105 of 2021, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 452, 342, 323, 380, 354(A),

                   380, 366(A), 506 and 34 of IPC.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that one

                   Kusuma Devi made a written application on 10.04.2021 at about

                   12 hours when she was sleeping with her family then some

                   persons variously armed with sharp weapons forcibly entered

                   into her house and threatened to kill her family members. It is

                   further alleged that Bipin yadav and other accused persons

                   robbed jewelery and took away five lakh rupees. It is also

                   alleged that Bipin Yadav and other accused persons kidnapped

                   her daughter and took her away in a Scorpio car.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. The entire
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91973 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     prosecution story is false, fabricated and concocted. Learned

                     counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely

                     implicated in this case due to neighbour dispute.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer of

                     anticipatory bail.

                                  6. Considering the fact that the allegations against the

                     petitioner is serious in nature of having entered the house of

                     informant having firearm weapons and of taking away Rs.

                     5,00,000/- and some ornaments made of silver and also that the

                     minor daughter was also kidnapped by the petitioner and the

                     accused persons. Under these circumstances, the Court is not

                     inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                  7. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected

                     with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Court

                     below concerned within six weeks from the date of this order

                     and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below will consider

                     his prayer for regular bail in accordance with law without being

                     prejudiced by this Court.



                                              (Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…