Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6605/2026bail granted

Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Kumar Banti @ Amit Kumar @ Banti v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-23Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6605 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2025 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Kumar Banti @ Amit Kumar @ Banti S/o Bhupendra Yadav R/o Village- Karnpoatti, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Triveniganj, Distt.- Supaul ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 23.11.2025 in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 294 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 109(1), 303(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3. That the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.06.2025 this petitioner tried to hit her with his motorcycle and abused her near her house. When her husband Arjun Yadav reached there, petitioner also abused and threatened him before leaving. Later, the petitioner returned with his father and ten

2/4 persons. On the exhortation of his father, the petitioner fired at Arjun Yadav on his chest, and his father also fired, injuring his arm. It is further alleged that the accused persons entered the house, looted Rs.2 lakhs, and fired several rounds at the place of occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that due to petty dispute the present occurrence took place. It is further submitted that although there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he along with his father has fired upon the husband of the informant. It is also submitted that as per the allegation as alleged in the FIR, two persons have fired upon the husband of the informant but from bare perusal of the injury report of the injured person it suggests that he has received only one firearm injury. It is further submitted that as per the injury report, the injury caused to the injured person is simple in nature.

3/4

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and as per the allegation as alleged in the FIR that two persons have fired upon the husband of the informant but only one injury is found on the body of the injured person, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Supaul in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 294 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner 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 his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers 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

4/4 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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) Gaurav Sinha/- U T