Sri Ram Yadav @ Shree Ram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7175 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2024 Thana- DHANKUND District- Banka ====================================================== 1.
Sri Ram Yadav @ Shree Ram Yadav Son of Vilash Yadav village- kathara, Ps- Dhankund, Dist- Banka 2.
Lablesh Yadav @ Sablesh Yadav son of Vilash Yadav village- kathara, PsDhankund, Dist- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Informant :
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Meena Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the Informant and Mrs. Meena Singh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners seek regular bail in connection with Dhankund P.S. Case No. 88 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and subsequently added under Section 103(1) of B.N.S. Petitioners have clean antecedent.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the informant has alleged that the two accused persons including the petitioners had threatened the informant and others that they
2/4 would be eliminated and on the subsequent date, i.e., 30.08.2024, all the FIR named accused persons had come to the house of the informant, armed with deadly weapons and it is alleged that the co-accused Ajay Yadav assaulted one Ashok Yadav (informant's husband) by means of iron rod and subsequently, the other co-accused, namely, Fantush Yadav also assaulted the informant's husband and he fell unconscious. The informant has further stated that when the informant and her bhaisur, Gopi Yadav intervened, the other accused persons, namely, Vadri Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Fantush Yadav and Gulsan Yadav by means of lathi, had assaulted her and had even snatched away her silver jewellery and other documents from the box.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation upon the petitioners is of assaulting the said Ashok Yadav (informant's husband). The learned counsel has submitted that from perusal of the FIR it is evident that there is general and omnibus allegation upon the petitioners along with other named accused persons and moreover he has drawn the attention of this Court towards the postmortem report wherein
3/4 the ante-mortem injury referred to, does not corroborate the allegations made against the petitioners. The learned counsel has further stated that the petitioners have clean antecedent and they are in custody since 27.09.2024.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that the petitioners along with other named co-accused persons have assaulted the husband of the informant as well as others and also caused the death of the husband of the informant, as such they should not be granted the liberty of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties and taking into account that there is no specific allegation of overt act against the petitioners and also considering the period of custody, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. 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 amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Banka, in connection with Dhankund P.S. Case No. 88 of 2024,
4/4 subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be his close relative and the other shall be local resident. (ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned. (iv) 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 his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bonds 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.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Siwani/- U T