← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82056/2025bail granted

Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-15Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82056 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2025 Thana- Hathiyav District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== Sanjay Yadav S/o Jagdish Yadav R/o vill - Dullapur, P.s.- Hathiyawan, Distt.- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Hathiyawan P.S. Case No. 46 of 2025 dated 29.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 308(5), 303(2), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that he was getting the Panchayat Bhawan constructed, the named accused persons including the petitioner along with 7 to 8 unknown persons came variously armed with lathi and danda and threatened him to stop the work and demanded Rs. 10 lakhs as ransom. It is further alleged that the accused persons assaulted the informant with lathi and danda etc., and snatched

2/4 away his gold chain and also took away Rs. 25,000/- cash.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. From bare perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the named accused persons. It has further been submitted that the petitioner and others had objected to the poor quality construction being made by the informant, upon which the present false and concocted case has been lodged against the petitioner and others and there is nothing on record to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, 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 Court below where the case is pending/successor

3/4 court in connection with Hathiyawan P.S. Case No. 46 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 BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.

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

(v) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of 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.

4/4

7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Gautam/- U T