Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13516 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2024 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Pappu Yadav, Son of Surendra Yadav, Village- Gapochak, Police StationShakurabad, District -Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 379, 308, 504, 506/34of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based upon the written report, the prosecution alleges that in course of taking bath, some dispute has arisen, which resulted into scuffle, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner assaulted the brother of the informant by means of Iron rod, as a result of which he sustained serious injury, apart from fracture in his hand. There is further allegation against the other accused persons.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the F.I.R. primarily contended that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13516 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 2/3 alleged occurrence took place on 01.05.2024, but surprisingly the typed copy of the written report has been filed before the S.H.O., Shakurabad police station on 04.05.2024 and the present F.I.R. has been registered on 15.05.2024. There is no explanation either on the part of the informant in causing delay in lodging of the F.I.R. or registration of the same. Drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order, it is further contended that even the impugned order does not whisper about the nature of the injury, moreover, the petitioner is a man of fair antecedent and the F.I.R. has not been instituted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is lastly contended that both the parties are own Gotia and on account of a trivial matter they entered into scuffle, resulting into unfortunate injury to the brother of the informant.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner assaulted the informant's brother, causing serious injury.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the delay in lodging of the F.I.R., coupled with the fair antecedent of the petitioner and the fact that there is no disclosure of the nature of the injury in the impugned order, let the petitioner, named above, in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13516 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 3/3 his arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 90 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. with the further conditions (i) One of the bailors shall be the own/close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall not be indulged in such kind of activities or intimidation of the informant and his family members.
(Harish Kumar, J) uday/- U T