Vakil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11169 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2024 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Vakil Yadav Son of Shiv Pujan Yadav Resident of Village- Mahuari PSPiarpura District -Patna 2.

Aditya Kumar son of Mahendra Yadav Resident of Village- Mahuari PSPiarpura District -Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126, 115(2), 109, 308(3), 308(4), 352 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 has antecedent of eight cases and petitioner No. 2 has antecedent of two cases and allegation is of demanding extortion and firing, it is next submitted that though allegation of firing is alleged, but then no one was injured in the firing and the said allegation is ornamental as no empty cartridge was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11169 of 2026(2) dt.24-07-2026 2/2 recovered from the place of occurrence, it is further submitted that even allegation of demanding extortion has been alleged on account of previous dispute existing in between the parties.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioner No. 1 has antecedent of eight cases and petitioner No. 2 has antecedent of two cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. This application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) nitesh/- U T