Patna High Court – Orders
Karnvir Singh Yadav @ Lallu Mukhiya vs The State Of Bihar on 5 August, 2025
Author: Chandra Prakash Singh
Bench: Chandra Prakash Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21173 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2023 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
Karnvir Singh Yadav @ Lallu Mukhiya Son of Late Ramvilash Prasad
Resident of Village - Gulab Bag, P.S.- Barh, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Arun Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Raghav Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
8 05-08-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Informant as well as learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case
in connection with Barh P.S. Case No. 98 of 2023 dated
10.02.2023 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 302 and
120B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, when the informant
along with his father and his sister was returning from the
examination centre, in the meantime, the co-accused persons
stopped the motorcycle of the informant and one Arun Yadav
dashed the motorcycle of the informant. It is further alleged that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21173 of 2025(8) dt.05-08-2025
2/7
one of the co-accused persons, namely, Nageshwar Prasad Bald,
is the grandfather of the informant and on his exhortation, the
co-accused Bablu Yadav shot the informant’s father dead and
the co-accused Sanjay Yadav also fired on the informant but
anyhow he escaped, thereafter all the accused fled away from
there.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of
the petitioner has sprung up during the course of the
investigation. No incriminating material has been recovered
from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that there is no evidence either direct or indirect or
circumstantial evidence against the petitioner to connect his
complicity in the alleged crime and as such no case under
section 302 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. It is
apparent that the informant himself is the eyewitness to the
alleged occurrence and made allegation of firing on his father is
against the co-accused Bablu Yadav and the informant also
identified all the accused who were present at the place of
occurrence. It is further submitted that the informant has also
filed two protest petitions before the learned court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21173 of 2025(8) dt.05-08-2025
3/7
concerned and in both the protest petitions, the informant has
not made any allegation against the petitioner. The statements of
the informant and his sister were also recorded during the course
of the investigation but they have not taken the name of the
petitioner and has not raised any suspicion against the petitioner
in the alleged crime. The petitioner is a social worker and is
involved in political activities and has earned a great reputation
in the locality due to that the political rivals are making
conspiracy for implicating him. The name of the petitioner did
not sprung up during the course of the investigation either in the
statement of witnesses or in the confessional statement of
accused persons but all of a sudden without any rhyme or reason
and without any materials collected during the course of the
investigation, police, in a hypothetical manner, by letter dated
24.02.2025, prayed before the learned court below for issuance
of warrant of arrest against the petitioner and that too at the
behest of the political rivals of the Petitioner. On the aforesaid
Petition of the Investigating Officer dated 24.02.2025, the
learned A.C.J.M. Barh has been pleased to issue Non Bailable
Warrant of arrest against the Petitioner. The petitioner has 32
criminal antecedents and out of which he has been acquitted
in 16 criminal cases as stated in para 3 of the bail petition.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21173 of 2025(8) dt.05-08-2025
4/7
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the reliance on
paras 8 and 9 in the case of Asha Dubey Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.
Appeal No. 4564 of 2024/SLP Cri. No. 13123 of 2024) which
are quoted hereunder:-
“8. Coming to the consideration of
anticipatory bail, in the event of
declaration under Section 82 of the
Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that
there will be a total embargo on
considering the application for the
grant of anticipatory bail.
9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted
against, this Court will have to see the
circumstances of the case, nature of the
offence and the background based on
which such a proclamation was issued.
Suffice it is to state that it is a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail, on the
condition that the appellant shall
cooperate with the further
investigation. However, liberty is also
given to the respondents to seek
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21173 of 2025(8) dt.05-08-2025
5/7cancellation of bail that has been
granted, in the event of violation of the
conditions which are to be imposed by
the trial court or if there are any
perceived threats against the
witnesses.”
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as
learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel has for
informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory
bail of the petitioners. Learned counsel has further submitted
that the instant anticipatory bail application is not maintainable
as the process u/ss 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been issued
against the petitioners. The petitioners are declared a proclaimed
offender. Learned counsel for the informant has further relied
upon the case of (Abhishek vs. State of Maharashtra (2022) 14
SCC 529) where it was held that “As regards the implication of
proclamation having been issued against the appellant, we have
no hesitation in making it clear that any person, who is declared
as an ‘absconder’ and remains out of reach of the investigating
agency and thereby stands directly at conflict with law,
ordinarily, deserves no concession or indulgence.” Reliance has
further been placed on the decisions of (Lavesh vs. State (NCT
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21173 of 2025(8) dt.05-08-2025
6/7
of DelhiI) (2012) 8 SCC 730, Adri Dharan Das vs. State of
W.B. (2005) 4 SCC 303) and (Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State
of Bihar 2021 SCC Online SCC 955) and in the case of (State
of Haryana vs. Dharamraj (Cr. Appeal No. 2635 of 2023 @
out of SLP (Cri.) No. 2256 of 2022, reported in 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 739: 2023 INSC 784) disposed of 29.08.2023 wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that: “Anticipatory bail can be
granted to a person to a proclaimed offender only in
exceptional and rare case.” It is further submitted that the
materials available on the record do not reveal any exceptional
or rate case due to which the plea of anticipatory bail may be
considered. Learned counsel for the informant has further relied
on the judgment of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar & Anr. in SLP (Crl) No. 7940 of 2023 where it was
held that “even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants
they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not
apply for regular bail after its recalling. It is a fact that even
after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 82
Cr.P.C., they did not take any steps to challenge the same or to
enter appearance before the Trial Court to avert the
consequence. Such conduct of the appellants in the light of the
aforesaid circumstances leaves us with no hesitation to hold
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21173 of 2025(8) dt.05-08-2025
7/7
that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail.”
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case as well as the fact that the process u/ss 82 has been issued
against the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition is
not maintainable and the same is disposed of with direction to the
petitioner to surrender before the learned Court below concerned
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order
and pray for regular bail and the learned Court below may
consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in accordance
with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this
order.
7. The application stands disposed of.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)
guddukr/-
U T