Raju Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8902 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- DHANGAI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Raju Yadav, aged 41 years, Male, Son of Late Jamindar Yadav @ Late Jimidar Yadav, Resident of Village- Shivpur, P.S.- Dhangai, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, all the four named coaccused persons including the present petitioner along with 4-5 unknown persons assaulted the father of the informant by Lathi, Danda and Rod, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is the own brother of Rajesh Yadav and Rabindra Yadav and Rabindra Yadav is the son-inlaw of the deceased Jai Prakash Singh and there is land dispute

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8902 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 2/3 attributed between Raju Yadav and Rabindra Yadav, which is apparent from the First Information Report. He further submits that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence. He next submits that two persons namely Ramanand Singh and Rajesh Yadav have already been granted bail by the trial Court in B.P. No. 4331 of 2025 and B.P. No. 4553 of 2025 vide orders dated 12.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 respectively. Petitioner has got clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the petition and he is in custody since 27.08.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. From perusal of the FIR, entire case diary along with postmortem report and also perused the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, it appears that on the basis of written report of the informant, FIR has been registered under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS against four named co-accused persons including the present petitioner and the allegation is of assaulting the father of the informant by Lathi, Danda and Rod, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and thereafter he died. It also appears that the father of the informant in the injured condition has stated in his dying declaration regarding

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8902 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026 3/3 the involvement of the present petitioner and other co-accused persons as alleged in the FIR. From perusal of the postmortem report, it also appears that several injuries have been found on the body of the father of the informant (deceased), so prima facie, the statement of the informant's father has supported his case, so in this circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner.

7. Accordingly, Prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Anand Kr.

U T