Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj Yadav @ Vinit Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21259 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-810 Year-2025 Thana- SIWAN MUFFASIL District- Siwan ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj Yadav @ Vinit Kumar Yadav, Son of Ram Bilash Yadav, Resident of village- Dhnauti, P.S.- Mufassil, District - Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pranav Bhaskar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Siwan Muffasil (Dhanauti) P.S. Case No. 810/2025, registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 103(1), 74, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS.

3. As per prosecution case, in the background of earlier altercation and quarrel with the daughter of the informant, the petitioner and co-accused Sumit Kumar caught hold the son of the informant and stabbed him to death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken

2/4 place. The informant is not an eye witness and no one has seen the occurrence. Even from the FIR, it is clear that the petitioner is not the assailant of the son of the informant and the allegation of stabbing is specific against co-accused Sumit Kumar, whose prayer for grant of bail has been rejected by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.06.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33223 of 2026. No material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner was involved in stabbing or causing death of the son of the informant. Though, the allegation against the petitioner is that he caught hold of the deceased and, thereafter, the co-accused stabbed him, but the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged and it appears it was only the co-accused who was involved in the said occurrence. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2025 and is having clean antecedents. The charge sheet has been submitted.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned APP submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he caught hold of the deceased and the co-accused stabbed him.

6. Having regard to the fact and circumstances and

3/4 submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the lack of substantive material against the petitioner showing his involvement in the occurrence and further considering the period of custody of the petitioner and his clean antecedent as well as submission of charge sheet against him, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Siwan/court concerned, in connection with Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 810 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the BNSS and other following conditions:

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled

4/4 by the court concerned.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T