Pradip Yadav @ Pradeep Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4598 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2025 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya ====================================================== Pradip Yadav @ Pradeep yadav son of Late Pairu Yadav @ Pairo Yadav Resident of village -Ichoi PS -Tankuppa District -Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shailesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-03-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that 5 named accused persons including the petitioner on 20-10-2025 at 6:30 pm, started abusing and assaulting him and Rahul assaulted him by rod caused injury on head, while Ramu assaulted Yamuna by rod causing injury on head, thereafter petitioner assaulted Bindeshwar by lathi causing injury on head and Ashok along with Shivnandan assaulted Shubhash causing injury on hand and back, it is next alleged that reason for the occurrence was with regard to burning

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4598 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026 2/2 crackers on eve of Diwali.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then petitioner is alleged to have assaulted Bindeshwar by lathi causing injury on head, but then the injury suffered by Bindeshwar is opined to be simple and the blow was not repeated.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 217 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T