Prince Yadav @ Prince Raj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9265 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-549 Year-2025 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== Prince Yadav @ Prince Raj S/O Raveesh Chandra R/O Village- Amari, P.SKhaira, Dist.- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. P.N. Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Akash Raj, Advocate Mr. Rajit Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Nikita Mittal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No.549 of 2025, for allegedly having committed offences under Sections 140(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to the effect that on the date of occurrence, while he and his son had gone to Jamui civil court in connection with a case, one Pawan Yadav and Shahwaz Khan together with 8-9 accused persons came to the court and told his son that your deposition will be recorded in court only after 02:00 p.m. and took the
2/5 informant and his son with them on two different motorcycles. It is further alleged that the accused persons took the informant and his son to Panchmandir and from there, the informant was taken to the bank of Bachhiyar river by two persons. Thereafter, both the persons asked the informant to talk to his son and the son of the informant told the informant about demand of ransom of Rs.4,00,000/-. The son of the informant also told the informant that if the demand of ransom would not be fulfilled, he would be killed. To arrange the ransom amount, both the persons left the informant at Mahisauri Chowk and they also called from mobile number mentioned in the First Information Report on the mobile number of the wife of the informant and asked for ransom to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. The accused persons also called from another number mentioned in the First Information Report and asked the informant to come with the ransom amount in 10 minutes. The informant further alleged that the petitioner and other persons are also members of the gang of Pawan Yadav and Shahwaz Khan.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not at all involved in the present case and the informant has not even seen the petitioner to be present at the place of occurrence. The allegation of taking away
3/5 his son is against Pawan Yadav and Shahwaz Khan and even the allegation of demanding ransom has been levelled against Pawan Yadav and Shahwaz Khan. There is no allegation against the petitioner or other accused persons except Pawan Yadav and Shahwaz Khan. It is further submitted that even the mobile numbers, which has been mentioned in the First Information Report, does not belong to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is a dispute in between the parties from before, for which, the petitioner has lodged Jamui P.S. Case No.577 of 2018, in which trial is going on. The father of the petitioner was to depose in the said case after two days from the date of the said occurrence and after lodging of the First Information Report by the father of the petitioner, three other cases have been lodged against the informant side. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has got three antecedents in which he is on bail. It is lastly submitted that the alleged victim came back on the same day to his house.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has got three antecedents.
6. Considering the rival submissions and after going
4/5 through the records, it appears that there is dispute in between the family members of the petitioner and the informant side. The father of the petitioner has lodged a case in the year 2018 being Jamui P.S. Case No.577 of 2018 in which trial is going on and one day after the occurrence, the statement of the father of the petitioner was to be recorded and for putting pressure upon the petitioner, he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It further appears that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner and the allegation, if any, have been levelled against Pawan Yadav and Shahwaz Khan.
7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No.549 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further condition that:- The learned court concerned 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 concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of
5/5 the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U T