Manas Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13427 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Anupam Kumari, D/o Shambhu Yadav, R/o village- Amni, P.S.- Mansi, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14262 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Manas Yadav S/o Gajo Yadav R/o Village- Karhara, P.S- Salkhua, DistrictSaharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13427 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14262 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case no.123 of 2025, registered under sections 109 and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act to which sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
2/4 Sanhita, 2023 and sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act were added subsequently.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that over some dispute between the brother of his elder son-inlaw namely Manas Yadav and his other son-in-law, it is stated that late in the night Manas Yadav came and shot his other sonin-law namely Surendra Yadav who is being treated in an unconscious state in the hospital.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. In course of treatment, the son-in-law of the informant namely Surendra Yadav died. So far as Anupam Kumari is concerned, she happens to be the wife of the deceased and as would be evident from the contents of the order of the learned trial Court, she has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of her statement allegedly recorded before the police to the effect that she was having a love affair with the assailant Manas Yadav. The allegations are false and incorrect. She is in custody since 31.5.2025. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and she has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further in reference to the petitioner Manas Yadav submits that he has
3/4 been falsely implicated in the case. No such occurrence has been given effect to by this petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. The allegation of the petitioner having an affair with the wife of the deceased is also false and incorrect. The so called confessional statement made before police carries no value.
6. The applications for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner Manas Yadav of having fired upon and causing firearm injury on Surendra Yadav leading to his death, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner Manas Yadav on bail and the application is rejected.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation of being the assailant of the deceased being solely on co-accused Manas Yadav and not the petitioner Anupam Kumari, the only material against Anupam Kumari being her statement recorded in paragraph no.33 of the case diary wherein in her statement before the police she accepted of having a love affair with co-accused Manas Yadav, the petitioner Anupam Kumari having remained in custody since 31.5.2025, charge-sheet having been submitted in the case and her not having any criminal
4/4 antecedent, she is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case no.123 of 2025, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria.
(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T