Shrikant Yadav @ Srikant Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9920 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-351 Year-2025 Thana- KATORIYA District- Banka ====================================================== Shrikant Yadav @ Srikant Yadav Son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of village - Tetariya, Police Station - Katoriya, District - Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Saurabh Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Katoriya P.S. Case no. 351 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have assaulted the father of the informant, causing grievous injury on his head.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is case and counter case between the parties. The manner of occurrence is categorically denied, the correct version having been given in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9920 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026 2/2 counter case lodged by the petitioner's side. The petitioner is in custody since 17.11.2025 and has no criminal antecedent.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State who submits that as a result of assault by the petitioner on the head of the father of the informant led to grievous injury being lacerated wound on the central perital region resulting in hemorrhagic contusion in the right parietal lobe.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and the same having been supported in the injury report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T