The Patna High Court has granted provisional bail in a serious criminal case involving firearm injury under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, while conditioning its confirmation on a critical factual verification: whether the petitioner’s testimony in a prior murder trial was recorded after the alleged offence. This order establishes a novel procedural safeguard against retaliatory litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Lalu Yadav @ Abhinash Kumar, is accused in Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025 for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(1), 351(2), 352, 109(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant alleges that on 20.06.2025 at 08:00 PM, the petitioner fired a firearm at her leg, causing injury, after she visited his residence earlier that day at 06:30 PM to demand repayment of a Rs. 70,000 loan.
Key Facts
- The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated to coerce him into withdrawing from a separate criminal trial
- The informant is the wife of a man accused in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016, in which the petitioner’s father was killed
- The petitioner asserts it is illogical that the informant, wife of his father’s alleged killer, would have lent him Rs. 70,000
- The petitioner was in custody since 05.12.2025
- The petitioner claims he was unaware of his implication in the instant case until after his testimony was recorded in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016
- The petitioner’s testimony in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016 was recorded on 15.12.2016
Procedural History
- 20.06.2025: Alleged offence occurred
- 2025: FIR registered as Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025
- 05.12.2025: Petitioner taken into custody
- 06.05.2026: Bail application filed before Patna High Court
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contends that the FIR is retaliatory, filed to prevent him from testifying in the ongoing trial concerning his father’s murder. He argues that his prior testimony in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016, recorded on 15.12.2016, proves he could not have been aware of the instant case when he gave evidence, as it predates the FIR by nearly nine years.
The State opposes bail, arguing the allegations of firearm injury are serious and the petitioner’s claim of unawareness lacks documentary proof.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks regular bail or, in the alternative, provisional bail pending verification of his testimony date in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016.
The Legal Issue
Can provisional bail be granted in a serious criminal case under the BNS, 2023, where the accused claims false implication motivated by retaliation in a pending trial, and the court must verify whether the accused’s prior testimony was recorded after the alleged offence?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR is a retaliatory tactic to silence him in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016, where he is a key witness. He emphasized that the informant’s relationship with the accused in the murder case makes the loan allegation implausible. He further contended that since his testimony in the murder trial was recorded on 15.12.2016 - nearly nine years before the FIR - it is impossible he was aware of the instant case when he testified, thereby undermining the State’s claim of motive for retaliation.
For the Respondent
The State’s counsel countered that the allegations under the BNS and Arms Act are grave, involving use of a firearm. He argued that the petitioner’s claim of unawareness is unsubstantiated by any official record or document proving the timing of his testimony in the prior case. He stressed that the court cannot rely on oral assertions without corroboration, especially in cases involving weapons and bodily harm.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges under the BNS, 2023, particularly those involving firearms. However, it noted the petitioner’s claim of retaliatory implication, grounded in a long-standing personal vendetta, warranted a factual inquiry beyond mere allegations. The Court observed that if the petitioner’s testimony in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016 was recorded after 21.06.2025, the claim of retaliation would gain credibility, as it would suggest the petitioner was already engaged in the prior trial when the FIR was filed.
"It is next submitted that petitioner was not even aware of his implication in the instant case, as such after institution of the instant case, his evidence was recorded in the trial arising out of Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016."
The Court found this assertion, while unverified, was not frivolous and merited investigation by the Trial Court. It held that the petitioner’s custody since December 2025, coupled with the unusual timing of the FIR relative to the prior trial, justified provisional relief pending verification. The Court emphasized that the burden of verifying the date of testimony lies with the Trial Court, not the High Court at this stage.
The Verdict
The petitioner is granted provisional bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The provisional bail shall be confirmed if the Trial Court verifies that the petitioner’s testimony in Salkuha P.S. Case No. 236 of 2016 was recorded after 21.06.2025. If the testimony was recorded prior to 21.06.2025, the provisional bail shall be cancelled forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Retaliatory FIRs Require Procedural Scrutiny
- Practitioners must now document and cross-reference timelines between pending trials and newly filed FIRs when alleging retaliatory prosecution
- Oral claims of unawareness are insufficient; courts will demand documentary proof of testimony dates or official records
- Bail applications in retaliatory cases should include certified copies of court proceedings from related cases
Verification of Testimony Dates Is Now a Valid Bail Condition
- Courts may now condition bail on verification of prior testimony dates in connected cases
- Trial Courts are empowered to act as fact-finders in bail proceedings when retaliation is alleged
- This creates a new procedural avenue for accused persons in long-standing feuds to seek interim relief without full trial
Burden of Proof Shifts to the State for Corroboration
- When an accused raises a plausible claim of retaliation tied to a prior proceeding, the State must rebut with evidence of motive or timing
- The absence of documentary proof of prior testimony does not automatically negate the claim - it triggers a duty for the Trial Court to investigate
- This ruling reinforces the principle that bail is not merely a matter of gravity of offence but also of procedural fairness
