← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5510/2026bail granted

Daroga Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-24Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5510 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2025 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Daroga Yadav Son of Late Timal Yadav Resident of Vill. - Miskar Tola, Ward No-14, P.S.- Chanpatiya, Dist - West Champaran. 2.

Ramesh Yadav Son of Saral Yadav @ Sarlal Yadav Resident of Vill. - Miskar Tola, Ward No-14, P.S.- Chanpatiya, Dist - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as also counsel for the Informant.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 169 of 2025 dated 27.08.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 117(2), 115(2), 109(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per prosecution case, on 27.08.2025 at about 2:05 A.M., the accused persons including the petitioners allegedly assaulted the informant's brother Rajeshwar Yadav with iron rods and Gadasi due to which he sustained injuries upon his head. When the informant and others intervened, they were also

2/4 assaulted, resulting in a fractured hand of Satish Kumar and head injury to Kanhaiya Yadav.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that there is a case and counter case between the parties and, in the alleged occurrence, both sides have sustained injuries. Counsel for the petitioners next submitted that though there is no specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioner no.1 but, there is specific allegation against the petitioner no.2 of assaulting one Kanhaiya Yadav but, the injury sustained by him is simple in nature. It is next submitted that the petitioner no.1 has also sustained injuries in the alleged occurrence upon his head and the photographs and medical prescriptions of the petitioner no.1 has also been annexed with this anticipatory bail petition as Annexure-3 Series.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners but, have not confronted with the factual position.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is a case and counter case between the parties and in the alleged occurrence, both the parties have sustained injuries, which are simple in nature, let

3/4 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 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 169 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:

(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; (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;

(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;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty

4/4 to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) rishi/- U T