Patna High Court
Gorelal YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the allegations do not establish a prima facie case and the likelihood of conviction is bleak.
Summary
The petitioner, Gorelal Yadav, was charged under several sections of the B.N.S. for alleged assault and damage to mango trees caused by his cattle. He sought pre‑arrest bail, arguing that the incident arose from a spontaneous fight with a co‑villager and that he had no intent to cause grievous injury. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The court examined the FIR, the investigation report noting lack of blood or incriminating material, and observed that the petitioner’s presence and intent were not established. Finding the chance of conviction to be bleak and noting the benefit of doubt, the court granted pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions and directed mediation. The bail application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S. given the allegations.
- Whether the evidence on record establishes a prima facie case against the petitioner.
- Whether the possibility of conviction is sufficiently remote to justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 152, 303(2), 3(5), 482(2), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- B.N.S.
- assault
- property damage
- mediation
- Section 438
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.92067 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2025 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Gorelal Yadav S/o Late Sahan Yadav @ Late Sahdeo Yadav R/o Village -
Akabarbigha, P.S- Barbigha, District - Sheikhpura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Barbigha P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2),
109(1), 74, 303(2), 152 and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the cattle
of the petitioner and co-accused Jamindar Yadav entered into the
field of the informant and grazed and destroyed the newly
planted mango trees. It is further alleged that upon protest being
raised by the informant and his brother, the petitioner and his
brother abused and assaulted them inflicting injuries to their
head and hand. It is also alleged that the other family members
of the informant were also assaulted by the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92067 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/4
petitioner submitted that the informant is the co-villager, while
the allegation is that cattle of the petitioner had grazed and
destroyed the recently planted mango trees, while it was raining
as reported by the Investigating Officer. Because the plant got
damaged, the informant started abusing the petitioner and his
entire family members. Both the parties indulged into free fight
and as a result of heat of passion and the spur of the moment,
the petitioner may have caused some injury, but not with
intention, though the injuries are grievous. To buy peace of
mind and informant being the co-villager of the petitioner, the
petitioner don’t want to continue the enmity with the informant.
Learned counsel relies upon the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.,
reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 and seeks that a chance be given to
the petitioner to negotiate with the informant to arrive at an
amicable settlement.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the F.I.R., as well as, the manner in which the incident has taken
place, in Para-7 of the case diary, I.O. has reported that there
was no sign of any blood nor any incriminating material was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92067 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/4
collected in course of investigation. Some of the newly planted
mango trees were destroyed, the cattle may have grazed the
same, from the F.I.R., it cannot be said that the petitioner was
present on the spot or he had intentionally allowed his cattle to
graze or destroy the newly planted mango trees, it is not a case
that the petitioner along with his brother with an intention to kill
the informant in a planned manner had conspired to do so and in
absence of such allegation, I find that the parties indulged in hot
talk which resulted into free fight, though there is no counter
case lodged by the petitioner’s side. Injuries are grievous in
nature and it cannot be said that the same is attributable to the
petitioner only, the brother of the petitioner namely Jamindar
Yadav has already been granted regular bail, I find that the
petitioner deserves to be given benefit of doubt and there is very
bleak chance that the petitioner can be convicted if he faces the
trial. The petitioner has, prima facie, made out a case to be
released on pre-arrest bail.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the Court below within a period of four weeks from
today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sheikhpura in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.92067 of 2025(3) dt.02-04-2026
4/4
with Barbigha P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025, subject to the
condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C / 482(2)
BNSS.
8. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner
is involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-
3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.
9. Considering the desire of the petitioner, learned
District Court is directed to examine the matter for settlement of
the dispute outside the court by way of mediation in light of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78 and take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Centre by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties to give effect to “Mediation for the
Nation 2.0”, so that the parties may buy peace of mind and
maintain peace in their village instead of fighting.
10. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…