Patna High Court
Balindra YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the allegations are serious and the petitioners have multiple prior criminal cases.
Summary
Balindra Yadav and Sunil Yadav applied for anticipatory bail in a case arising from FIR No. 420 of 2025, which alleges that they, along with co‑accused, shot an informant with eight bullets, causing grievous injuries. The petitioners claim they are falsely implicated due to personal enmity, while the informant opposes bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the petitioners' extensive prior criminal records. The FIR charges the petitioners under Sections 109 and 61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The court examined the specific allegation of firing upon the informant, the nature of the injuries, and the petitioners' multiple pending cases. Considering the gravity of the charges and the petitioners' antecedents, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the allegations under Sections 109/61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and the petitioners' prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 61
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedents
- grievous injury
- firearms offence
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- personal enmity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9282 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2025 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Balindra Yadav S/O Misri Yadav R/O Madwani, P.S- Phulwaria, Distt.-
Gopalganj.
2. Sunil Yadav S/O Suresh Yadav R/O Madwani, P.S- Phulwaria, Distt.-
Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepankar Raj
For the State : Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia
For the informant : Mr. Tej Pratap
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
Counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Bhore Police Station Case No. 420 of 2025, dated
16.08.2025, disclosing offences punishable under
Sections 109/61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 16.08.2025, at about 08:30 PM, while the
informant was at his door, co-accused persons, namely,
Nitesh Manjhi and Krishna Ram came there and told him
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9282 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/3
to come to the temple and when the informant went to the
temple along with them, he ordered the persons who were
hiding by the side of the temple to shoot the informant,
upon which they fired upon the informant. The informant
recognized them as the petitioners as well as Sohail
Manjhi and Dhiraj Manjhi. The accused persons have
shot eight bullets on the informant.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated
in this case due to personal enmity between the parties.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant
vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and
submits that from the impugned order, it is apparent that
the informant has received multiple number of gun shot
injuries and the injuries are grievous in nature. He further
submits that there is specific and direct allegation against
the petitioners. He next submits that the petitioner no. 1
has eight criminal antecedents; whereas, the petitioner no.
2 is involved in seven other criminal cases.
6. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the
seriousness of the offence and the fact that there is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9282 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/3
specific allegation against the petitioners of firing upon
the informant, the informant has received multiple gun
shot injuries and petitioners are involved in more than
eight other criminal cases, I am not inclined to grant the
petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…