Kishore Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1200 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2025 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.
Kishore Yadav S/o Late Kari Yadav Resident of village- Beltari, Ward No.3 Rupash wari R.P. Police Station-Janki Nagar, District- Purnea 2.
Vikash Yadav @ Vikash Kumar S/o Kishore Yadav Resident of villageBeltari, Ward No.3 Rupash wari R.P. Police Station-Janki Nagar, DistrictPurnea 3.
Meera Devi Wife of Kishore Yadav Resident of village- Beltari, Ward No.3 Rupash wari R.P. Police Station-Janki Nagar, District- Purnea 4.
Puja Kumari @ Rupa Kumari Wife of Vikas Yadav Resident of villageBeltari, Ward No.3 Rupash wari R.P. Police Station-Janki Nagar, DistrictPurnea ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Vikram Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Janki Nagar P.S. Case No. 292 of 2025 for the offence registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 132, 74, 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant, S.I.- Kumari Anushkar Rani alleged that during the evening patrolling, she found a motorcycle standing in the middle of the road. Upon enquiry, Amrendra Yadav came forward and stated
2/5 that he is the local don of the locality. Upon demand of papers, he started abusing. When she tried to take the motorcycle to the Police Station, Amrendra Yadav dashed her, as a result of which, she fell down. Allegation against the petitioner no. 2, Vikash Yadav is of having scuffle with Deepak Kumar, the Police constable while Amrendra Yadav gave lathi blow on the head of the informant, though she managed to save herself. He thereafter, threatened her of dire consequences before escape, finally the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that a perusal of the FIR would show that the main allegation is against Amrendra Yadav, these petitioners are family members and have been implicated, none have criminal antecedent. Further, the submission is that without accepting the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition, the petitioners on its own would like to contribute Rs. 1250/- each (totaling Rs. 5,000/-)to S.I., Kumari Anushka through Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank to be submitted before the 'NAZARAT' of concerned Court to be handed over to the informant after checking the credentials.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
3/5 opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that learned Sessions Judge order shows that besides Amrendra Yadav, these petitioners also have criminal antecedent but paragraph 3 is silent about it.
6. Mr. Vikram Singh representing the petitioner submits that those criminal histories are related to Amrendra Yadav and it is categorically submitted that none of them have criminal antecedent and if the observation of the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the four petitioners is/are found to be correct, the bail order be ordered to be infructuous.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the materials on record, main allegation is against Amrendra Yadav, who also has criminal antecedent and prohibited/blocked the lady Police Officer from doing her official duty. However, so far as these petitioners are concerned, they are family members including the two female petitioners. Paragraph 3 shows that they have no criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to grant them the anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. However, if it is found that any of the petitioner is having criminal antecedent, order against him/her shall become infructuous.
4/5
7. Let the petitioners in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in connection with Janki Nagar P.S. Case No. 292 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID) to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners 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 bail bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every month for next six months to mark attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be submitted to the Court;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
5/5 failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T