Arvind Yadav @ Aravind Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11853 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-54 Year-2025 Thana- MEHUSH District- Sheikhpura

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Arvind Yadav @ Aravind Yadav S/O Ramashish Yadav Village- Mayo, Post Office- Mayo, P.s.- Mehus, District- Sheikhpura

¶5

Sambhu Yadav @ Shambhu Yadav S/O Ramashish Yadav Village- Mayo, Post Office- Mayo, P.s.- Mehus, District- Sheikhpura

¶6

Ramashish Yadav S/O Late Siya Yadav Village- Mayo, Post Office- Mayo, P.s.- Mehus, District- Sheikhpura

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Versus ... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Anita Kumari, APP ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 25-02-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP

¶14

for the State.

¶15

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mehus P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025 dated 06.11.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶16

As per prosecution case, the accused persons allegedly abused and assaulted the informant and his family members over a previous dispute, causing injuries to Puja Devi, Pinki Devi and Mamta Devi, while one of the accused allegedly fired from a pistol with intent to kill, after which the injured were taken for treatment.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11853 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/3

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the nature of injury does not corroborate the allegations leveled against the petitioners. The instant case has been filed as a counter blast to the case filed by the co-accused Pintu Yadav being Mehus P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025. It is next submitted that there is no specific or direct allegation of overt act against the petitioners rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners are men of means and they are ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed in this case, in case the benefit of privilege of anticipatory bail is extended to them. The petitioners undertake that in future they would not indulge themselves in similar type of offences. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are persons of clean antecedent.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering that there is a case and counter case between the parties, there being no specific or direct allegation of any overt act against the petitioners as also the petitioners having no criminal antecedent, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11853 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 3/3

¶22

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Sheikhpura in connection with Mehus P.S. Case No. 54 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following conditions:

¶23

(i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;

¶24

(ii) the petitioner(s) 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 their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

¶25

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

¶26

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.

¶27

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶28

rishi/-

¶29

U T

Arvind Yadav @ Aravind Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Yadav @ Aravind Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Shankar Prasad @ Ravi Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar @ Awinash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Aman Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kumari Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Yadav @ Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Srikant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar