SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3650

PATNA HIGH COURT
PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J
Kishan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.186 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogendra Kumar, A.P.P.

The court balanced specific allegations against petitioners with their rights for anticipatory bail, allowing it for two and denying it for one based on preceding criminal conduct.

Headnote:In the Criminal Miscellaneous No.186 of 2026, the petitioners faced accusations under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita involving assault and robbery. The court noted specific allegations against the petitioner no. 1 while distinguishing the roles of petitioners nos. 2 and 3. The anticipatory bail for petitioner no. 1 was denied while it was granted for petitioners nos. 2 and 3 subject to conditions. The court found a balance between the nature of accusations and previous criminal records. The final outcome allowed bail to petitioners nos. 2 and 3 under set conditions.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita .

3. As per F.I.R., all the named accused persons, including these petitioners, assaulted the son of informant and took Rs. 1,000/- from the shop and Rs. 30,000/- from the pocket of informant. Petitioner no. 1 is alleged to have assaulted the son of informant by means of fighter.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that specific accusation of assault is against petitioner No. 1. So far rest of the petitioners are concerned, there is no specific allegation of overt act against them. Injury, allegedly, caused by petitioner nos. 2 & 3 are simple in nature. Rest of the allegations are ornamental only to make the case grave.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific accusation of assault against petitioner no. 1 and he has got three criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the specific accusation of assault against petitioner no. 1 and criminal antecedents, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No. 1 is refused

7. However, considering the nature of accusation against petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, the anticipatory bail with regard to petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 is allowed and it is ordered that the above named petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Railway Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in connection with Manihari Rail P. S. Case No. 207 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita .

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top