Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10351 (PAT)

Pappu Yadav v. The State of Bihar

/12937/2026 · 2026-02-26

Rajiv Roy

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12937 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2020 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - JHANJHARPUR District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1. Pappu Yadav S/o Mahesh Prasad Yadav R/o Village - Lakhnaur, Tole - Belahi, P.S - Lakhnaur, District - Madhubani 2. Sudha Devi W/o Pappu Yadav R/o Village - Lakhnaur, Tole - Belahi, P.S - Lakhnaur, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Rajiv Ranjan S/o Shri Mahesh Prasad Yadav R/o Village - Lakhnaur, Tole - Belhi, P.S - Lakhnaur, District - Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pushpa Sinha.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 2 26-02-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is allowed to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with regard to petitioner no. 1, Pappu Yadav. 2. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application with regard to petitioner no. 1, Pappu Yadav stands dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Heard the parties. 4. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 318 of 2020 for the offence under sections 420, 120(B), 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code lodged by the complainant, Rajiv Ranjan. 3. As per the complaint, the allegation is that his elder brother partitioned himself during the lifetime of the father and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12937 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 2/3 was living separately. Later, he alongwith his wife under criminal conspiracy, executed the land belonging to the complainant. The persons who appeared as witnesses were also made accused. This led to the complaint/FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even going by the complaint/FIR it would show that the main allegation is against Pappu Yadav (petitioner no. 1), the brother of the complainant and only to put pressure, the wife has also been implicated. Further paragraph-3 relating to criminal antecedent has been filed by her brother-in-law (Devar) and father-in-law (Sasur) and if granted bail, she shall be diligently appearing in trial/investigation. 5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that her name has also come in the complaint. 6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also that the petitioner is a lady, main role has been assigned to her husband, Pappu Yadav and an undertaking has been given that she will be diligently appearing in trial/investigation, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend her the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions. 7. Let the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12937 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 3/3 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1st Class, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani in connection with Complaint Case No. 318 of 2020 subject to the following conditions: (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi who shall provide official document (Aadhaar Card/Voter ID Card/Pan Card/Driving License) to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi 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 petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi 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; (iv) the petitioner no. 2, Sudha Devi shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of her bail bonds. Adnan/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U T