Chandan Yadav @ Chandu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3690 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-466 Year-2023 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Chandan Yadav @ Chandu Yadav S/O Sadhu Sharan Yadav R/O Village- Ore Bigha, P.S- Makhdumpur, Distt.- Jehanabad, presently residing in MohallaChhotaki Nawada (Cotton Mill), P.S- Delha, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 22.05.2024 in connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No. 466 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 10.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with other accused persons have assaulted and fired upon the informant due to which the informant sustained gun shot injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
2/4 present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R that although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R but there is no allegation of assault or firing against this petitioner rather the only allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other accused person, namely, Umesh have caught hold the informant and the coaccused fired upon him. He further submits that the petitioner has been made accused in the present case due to previous enmity. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner.
He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Nishant Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 87013 of 2024 and another co-accused, namely, Kartik Chandra Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42015 of 2025. The petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2024.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R and apart from
3/4 that the petitioner carries four criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits that he is on bail in all the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned DASJ-XI, Gaya in connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No. 466 of 2023, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T