Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.219 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2018 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Son of Sabhan Yadav @ Sohan Yadav R/o Village - Shoyana, P.S. - Jhajha, Dist. - Jamui. 2.
Bipin Yadav @ Bipin Kumar Son of Devendra Yadav R/o Village - Shoyana, P.S. - Jhajha, Dist. - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanju Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 385, 504, 506, 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 30(a)(b) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case and petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that Tej Narayan Yadav and other accused persons including the petitioners arrived at his residence in a Scorpio vehicle in an intoxicated condition and demanded Rs. 5,000/- by way of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.219 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/3 extortion and when he refused to pay, they threatened to kill him, further when villagers intervened, the accused persons fled away leaving the vehicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioners were not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from their conscious possession and are not the owner of the seized vehicle, as such, the alleged recovery of one liter of liquor from the Scorpio vehicle does not belong to the petitioners. It is also submitted that allegation of extortion is false and fabricated.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 333 of 2018 subject to the conditions as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.219 of 2026(2) dt.15-01-2026 3/3 laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in the event if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more than one case and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of even one case then it would be presumed that petitioners, for the purposes of seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed their antecedent before this Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case only and petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T