Kshatri Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3840 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2025 Thana- HARINMAR District- Munger ====================================================== 1.
Kshatri Yadav Son of Late Guno Yadav @ Gulo Yadav 2.
Vikas Yadav Son of Rajender Yadav Both Resident of Village - Goraiya Bathan, P.S.- Gogari Jamalpur, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Indu Bhushan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2026 Heard Mr.Indu Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Md. Fahimuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since 18.11.2025 in connection with Harinmar P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 13.07.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 303(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that when the informant's son went to plough his field all the accused persons suddenly came with weapons and country made pistol and stopped him to plough his field at gunpoint and abused him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3840 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 2/3 When the victim forbade him to so then they fired upon the victim.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR. It appears from the FIR that the allegation against petitioner No.1 is that he has given the order to petitioner No.2, namely, Vikash Yadav and he has fired upon the victim and victim has received the firearm injury. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the victim has received the injury but the same is not on the vital part of the body of the victim rather he has received the injury on his leg. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it appears from the aforesaid that there is no intention of petitioner No.2 to kill the victim and the petitioners are in custody since 18.11.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioner carries three more cases other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioners are on bail in these cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand)each with two sureties of the like
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3840 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.-1st Class-cumAdditional Munsif-7, Munger in connection with Harinmar P.S. Case No. 26 of 2025, with the following conditions:- (I) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on theri absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T