Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13456 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2025 Thana- ASANWA District- Siwan ====================================================== Ranjit Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar Yadav Son of Rudal Yadav Resident of VillageSinghpur, P.S.- Asawn, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pushpa Sinha-1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Asawn P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-III, Siwan.

3. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that petitioner handed over the pistol to the co-accused, Sonu Manjhi and ordered to open fire at the deceased hitting him in the ear.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation on the petitioner is only that of handing over pistol to the main accused, Sonu Manjhi and exhorting him to shoot at the deceased, whereafter Sonu Manjhi, actually shot at the son of the informant which subsequently led to his death. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13456 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 further submitted that the F.I.R. itself would disclose that a dispute had taken place between the young boys on account of petty nature of dispute and there was no intention whatsoever of causing the death of the deceased.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that it was this petitioner who handed over the pistol to the main accused and also exhorted, as such he does not deserve bail.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of case and also considering the fact that it was this petitioner who facilitated to shoot the deceased, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order preferably on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order considering the fact that petition is not the main assailant of the deceased, rather member of the mob and two co-accused have already been granted regular/anticipatory bail by different Benches of this Court.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T