Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22317 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2025 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Chandan Yadav @ Chandan Kumar Yadav S/O Birij Mohan Yadav Resident of Vill.- Bandhar, Ward No. 5, P.s.- Hathouri, Dist.- Samastipur 2.
Sumit Kumar Jha S/O Kishan Kumar Jha @ Kiran Kumar Jha R/O Vill.- Balaha, Ward no. 10, P.S.- Rosera, Dist.- Samastipur. 3.
Ajit Kumar S/O Sarvan Lal R/O Vill.- Suga Ramoul, Balaha Ward no. 14, P.S.- Rosera, Dist.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Khanpur P.S. Case No.22 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 223, 132, 121(2), 121(1), 352 and 292 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the FIR, the prosecution case states that a police officer, Manoj Kumar Singh, received secret information
2/4 about a Tiranga Rally led by Vikash Yadav, involving 400-500 people, which caused inconvenience to passengers and ambulances. Upon reaching the spot with police personnel, local persons and a chowkidar identified several individuals, including Vikash Yadav and others, along with many unknown participants, as being involved in the rally.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner alleged, has ever taken place. Except for the allegations, nothing is on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against these petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners undertakes not to indulge in any similar offence in the near future and that, upon verification, if it is found that the allegations are true, liberty may be granted to the State officials to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds. He further submits that, for similar allegations, the coaccused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56579 of 2025. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner No.1 has no criminal antecedent, petitioner No.2 has three criminal antecedent and petitioner No.3 has two criminal antecedent.
3/4
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the petitioners are innocent and no such occurrence in the manner alleged has ever taken place and similarly situated coaccused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56579 of 2025 . Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Judicial Magistrate- 1st, Samastipur in connection with Khanpur P.S. Case No.22 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/ personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
4/4 (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any similar criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T