Karelal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66538 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- Chitragupta Nagar District- Khagaria ====================================================== Karelal Yadav S/o- Muso Yadav Village- Ranko PS- Muffasil DistrictKhagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Viveka Nand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chitragupta Nagar P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 223, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2)(3), 303(2), 329(3), 111(6)(7), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the F.I.R named accused persons, including the petitioner (Karelal Yadav), have abused and assaulted Sanjeev Kumar, who was the caretaker of the property of the informant and thereafter, ousted him from the house in order to grab the land and house of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
2/4 petitioner is neither the owner of the land nor the subsequent purchaser of the land and has no concern whatsoever with the dispute. It has further been submitted that there is no specific allegation of any overt act alleged against the petitioner. From perusal of the sale agreement, which was entered between Ram Kumar Bajaj and Amit Kumar, the petitioner is not referred to in the agreement in any manner. He further submits that the present case has been lodged after a delay of nine days without any plausible explanation. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner carries four criminal cases against his name.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the co-accused, namely, Ram Kumar Bajaj has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Cr.Misc. Case No. 62145 of 2025, 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
3/4 where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chitragupta Nagar P.S. Case No. 60 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. 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
4/4 terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) aditya/- U