Vijay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15083 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2025 Thana- BAKHARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Vijay Yadav Son of Late Ram Chander Yadav Resident of Village- Narpa, P.S.- Bithan, District- Samastipur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 14-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(2), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that co-accused Baijnath Yadav took brother-in-law of informant, namely Anubhav Kumar, along with him to Bakhri market and from there, he took him to a deserted place near Machua Dhala Railway Gumti where three accused persons, along with this petitioner, were standing and co-accused Shyam Kumar fired upon Anubhav Kumar due to which he died.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15083 of 2026(4) dt.14-07-2026 2/2

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. The present F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay of 12 days and there is no plausible explanation for the same which itself makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. From bare perusal of the F.I.R. it is apparent that specific accusation is against co-accused Baijnath Yadav, Shyam Kumar and one unknown person who shot the deceased. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is specific accusation that the, along with other accused persons, in a planned conspiracy, killed brother-in-law of informant.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T