Gandhi Yadav @ Gandhi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17550 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-233 Year-2024 Thana- PURAINI District- Madhepura ====================================================== Gandhi Yadav @ Gandhi Kumar Son of Lageena Yadav @ Lagina Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Latraha (Latra), ward no. 12, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the BNS as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of three cases and the informant alleges that he along with his brother (Pawan), son (Pushpam) and cousin brother Prince and Pravesh were returning home by car, when six accused persons on two motorcycles came and intercepted the car and pulled Pushpam out of the car and assaulted and asked who is the contractor, on which, his brother said that he is the contractor, thus his brother was taken behind
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17550 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 the car and shot, thus alleges that his brother was killed at the instance of Pappu and Amit, on account of dispute relating to contract.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the confessional statement of Pintu in the police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law. It is also submitted that Amit Sah @ Amit Kumar had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 13751 of 2025 and the same was allowed by an order dated 12.05.2025, further Arun Mehta was granted the privilege of regular bail by order dated 09.05.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.15327/2025 by a learned coordinate Bench, it is also submitted that Siyaram Mehta and Shambhu Mehta have been granted the privilege of regular bail by order dated 26.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.48239/2025 and order dated 06.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No.90126/2025 respectively.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17550 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026 3/3 petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending in connection with Puraini P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father, namely, Lageena Yadav @ Lagina Prasad Yadav.
8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release, is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T