Vijay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8701 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2024 Thana- CHANAN District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Vijay Yadav S/o Bachhu Yadav 2.
Madan Yadav S/o Bachhu Yadav 3.
Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar S/o Vijay Yadav All are R/o vill - Mananpur Basti, P.S. - Chanan, Distt.- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.S.K.Lal, Sr.Advocate : Mr.Umesh Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2025 After some argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application with respect to petitioner No.3, namely, Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar.
2. Permission is accorded.
3. Accordingly, the bail petition with respect to petitioner No.3, namely, Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Heard Mr.S.K.Lal, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
5. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
2/4 connection with Chanan P.S.Case No.124 of 2024, FIR dated 01.11.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 352, 351(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2) of B.N.S.
6. Informant Urmila Devi has alleged that on 01.11.24 at about 6:30 A.M. all the accused persons named in FIR including three petitioners arrived at agricultural land of informant with various arms and started cutting ridges of land and when informant's father-in-law namely Janki Yadav protested then petitioner Madan Yadav assaulted Janki Yadav by means of spade over his head causing head injury and bleeding and other accused Pappu Yadav also assaulted Janki Yadav. It has further been stated by informant that when she went to save her father in law then accused Ranjeet Yadav assaulted her by means of iron rod over her head causing bleeding fever head injury. Further when son of informant namely Kundan Kumar came to save her mother then accused Pappu Yadav assaulted Kundan Kumar by means of sword. It has also been alleged by informant that when she fell down due to assault by accused then again accused persons assaulted her by means of sticks and gold chain was also snatched from her.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
3/4 petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is case and counter case. Although petitioners are named inn the FIR but it appears from the FIR itself that the specific allegation of assault is against coaccused person, namely, Ranjit Yadav and although there is also allegation against the petitioners that they also assaulted to the informant's side.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioners have clean antecedent, there is case and counter case, let petitioner Nos.1 and 2, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 learned Additional Cheif Judicial Magistrate in connection with G.R.No.1388 of 2023 arising out of Chanan P.S.Case No.124 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:-
4/4 (I) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below. (II) If the petitioners tamper 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 verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Nitesh/- U T