Vijay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38834 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2025 Thana- KHIRI MORE District- Patna ====================================================== Vijay Yadav, S/O Shabha Nand Yadav, R/o- Jitan Chhapra, P.S.- Rani Talab Distt- Patna. A/P Indrapuri Road No.- 1, P.S- Sukhdeo Nagar , Dist- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ram Jiban Pd Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khiri More P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 281, 125(a), 109, 132, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the FIR, an allegation of rash and negligent driving was made, which caused injury to the police personnel on duty. The FIR was lodged against unknown and only the name of the vehicle, which was found to be a Scorpio vehicle bearing Reg. No. UP 16AP 2954, was mentioned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has transpired

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38834 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026 2/3 during the course of the investigation, wherein the owner of the vehicle had stated that the petitioner was the driver of the said vehicle. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had no concern whatsoever and in fact, he has falsely been implicated by the owner of the vehicle to save his own skin and of his son. It has next been submitted that the petitioner was never the driver of the vehicle and he was also not driving the vehicle at the relevant time. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Khiri More P.S. Case No. 132 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38834 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026 3/3 as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.

(v) The learned 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 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the abovementioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.

8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/- U T