Jagesh Prasad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 19-05-2026

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode .

¶16

The petitioner is apprehending his/her arrest in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 456 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 103(1), 123 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).

¶17

As per the prosecution case, the informant gave a written application stating that his sister, namely, Musmat Bikhani Devi (the deceased) was murdered by all the accused

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026 2/4

¶19

persons forcibly by administering poison. It has been alleged that when the informant reached the place of occurrence, he saw that his sister was lying dead and, thereafter, the Police was called on and the post-mortem was conducted.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has been transpired during the course of investigation, wherein, it was found that the petitioner was a witness to a sale-deed, said to be executed by the son of the deceased. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is on account of the fact that the son of the deceased had executed the sale-deed and the said Musmat Bikhani Devi had committed suicide for which, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible. It has further been submitted that the petitioner merely stood as a witness to the sale-deed and he was neither the land holder nor the person who had got the sale-deed in his favour and, therefore, nothing can be alleged against him and no offence is made out against the petitioner, who was also not named by the informant initially. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

¶21

The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026 3/4

¶23

petitioner.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the concerned Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today, on his/her furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the case is pending in connection with Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 456 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the following conditions :

¶25

(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his/her close relative and the other shall be a local resident.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned Court.

¶28

(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33648 of 2026(2) dt.19-05-2026 4/4

¶30

antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶31

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

¶32

The application stands allowed.

¶33

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

¶34

Praveen-II/Tannu

Jagesh Prasad Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagesh Prasad 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

Jitu @ Jitendra Rajbanshi Vs The State of Bihar

Smita Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Rakesh Bhagat @ Rakesh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Nirajal Kumar @ Nirjal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Khurshid Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Mantu Lal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar