Arvind Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8216 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-325 Year-2024 Thana- JAYNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Arvind Kumar Yadav S/O Dev Narayan Yadav Resident of VillageChhaparadhi, P.S- Khajauli, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2025

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 109, 118(1), 3(5) and 61(2) of the BNS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of nine cases and the informant alleges that on account of existing land dispute since 2010 for which earlier cases were instituted. Further, the petitioner along with Md. Arif intercepted the informant and Santosh Yadav and petitioner fired causing injury on the informant's right hand palm.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant does not disclose the basis on which he identified the petitioner. It is next

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8216 of 2025(2) dt.07-03-2025 2/2 submitted that on account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place when it is not the case of the informant that the existing land dispute is with the petitioner.

5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of para 3 of the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that petitioner is carrying nine criminal antecedents of serious cases. It is further submitted that there is a specific allegation in the FIR that this petitioner fired causing firearm injury on the right hand palm of the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of Annexure-2, it would manifest that even the injury report corroborates the allegation of firing, though the injury has been opined to be simple but then it is submitted that it appears that the petitioner is a trigger happy person.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Jainagar P.S. Case No. 325 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T