Balindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9282 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2025 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

Balindra Yadav S/O Misri Yadav R/O Madwani, P.S- Phulwaria, Distt.- Gopalganj.

2.

Sunil Yadav S/O Suresh Yadav R/O Madwani, P.S- Phulwaria, Distt.- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepankar Raj For the State :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia For the informant :

Mr. Tej Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Bhore Police Station Case No. 420 of 2025, dated 16.08.2025, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 109/61 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 16.08.2025, at about 08:30 PM, while the informant was at his door, co-accused persons, namely, Nitesh Manjhi and Krishna Ram came there and told him

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9282 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 2/3 to come to the temple and when the informant went to the temple along with them, he ordered the persons who were hiding by the side of the temple to shoot the informant, upon which they fired upon the informant. The informant recognized them as the petitioners as well as Sohail Manjhi and Dhiraj Manjhi. The accused persons have shot eight bullets on the informant.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to personal enmity between the parties.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that from the impugned order, it is apparent that the informant has received multiple number of gun shot injuries and the injuries are grievous in nature. He further submits that there is specific and direct allegation against the petitioners. He next submits that the petitioner no. 1 has eight criminal antecedents; whereas, the petitioner no. 2 is involved in seven other criminal cases.

6. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the fact that there is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9282 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 3/3 specific allegation against the petitioners of firing upon the informant, the informant has received multiple gun shot injuries and petitioners are involved in more than eight other criminal cases, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √