Chhotan Kumar Yadav @ Chhotan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4294 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2024 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

Chhotan Kumar Yadav @ Chhotan Yadav S/O Shivji Yadav Resident of village- Ashani, P.S- Rasulpur, District- Saran. 2.

Pappu Kumar Yadav S/O Jiut Yadav Resident of village- Ashani, P.SRasulpur, District- Saran. 3.

Vidhata Yadav S/O Late Kanhaiya Yadav Resident of village- Ashani, P.SRasulpur, District- Saran. 4.

Pintu Kumar Yadav S/O Late Lorik Yadav Resident of village- Ashani, P.SRasulpur, District- Saran. 5.

Munna Yadav @ Munna Kumar Yadav S/O Late Kamala Yadav Resident of village- Ashani, P.S- Rasulpur, District- Saran. 6.

Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav S/O Shivji Yadav Resident of villageAshani, P.S- Rasulpur, District- Saran. 7.

Sanjay Yadav S/O Kamala Yadav Resident of village- Ashani, P.S- Rasulpur, District- Saran.

8.

Sipahi Yadav S/O Kamala Yadav Resident of village- Ashani, P.S- Rasulpur, District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Marya Najir For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-02-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Marya Najir and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 115, 118(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of B.N.S.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

2/4 petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 have antecedent of one case and rest of the petitioners are clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he saw that his father was surrounded by the accused persons near the house of Shokh Yadav, accordingly he intervened, when Chhotan assaulted his father by an iron rod causing injury on his head, thereafter Sipahi assaulted his father by an iron rod causing injury on his lips, further Vidhata and Pintu assaulted the informant by pipe causing injury at 2-3 places, thereafter Pappu assaulted Dharamnath by an iron rod causing injury on head and Munna assaulted by Khanti causing injury on his right hand, further Pankaj assaulted by knife causing injury on both hands of Sundar; and Guddu along with Sanjay assaulted by an iron rod.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is also submitted that from side of the petitioners, Rasulpur PS Case No. 179 of 2024 dated 14-9-2024 was instituted against the side of the informant. It is next submitted that petitioners herein, namely, Pappu, Chottan, Pintu, Sanjay, Vidhata and Sipahi sustained grievous injuries as they were assaulted by the side of the informant for which Rasulpur PS Case No. 179 of 2024 was instituted, it is also submitted that

3/4 they were witnesses in Session Trial No. 3 of 2023 in which Sunil is facing trial for murder of the father of Pintu who is Petitioner No. 4 in the instant application. It is next submitted that the injury suffered by the injured in the instant case is simple in nature as recorded in the order impugned, which amply demonstrates that petitioners never had any intention of committing a serious occurrence, rather they were defending themselves when some of the petitioners were assaulted badly leading to grievous injuries.

5.

Learned APP, Shri. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, opposes bail application and submits that there is a specific allegation against Pankaj of assaulting Sundar by knife causing injury on both hands, on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even the injury suffered by Sundar is simple in nature, on which learned APP submits that he might be lucky that the knife did not cause a grievous injury. 6.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to Pankaj Yadav (Petitioner No. 6) 7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of Pankaj Yadav is rejected.

8.

However, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8,

4/4 above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Rasulpur P.S. Case No. 180 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T