Raju Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22631 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Raju Yadav S/o Late Ramji Ray R/o Village - Bhaisada, P.S - Ramgarhwa, District - East Champaran 2.
Amit Kumar @ Amit Yadav S/o Sanjeet Yadav R/o Village - Bhaisada, P.S - Ramgarhwa, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 194 of 2025, dated 14.06.2025, lodged under Section 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 103(1) & 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNS, 2023"), pending before the Court of S.D.J.M., Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons, including the present petitioners, alleging that they brutally assaulted the son of the informant, which resulted in his death.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Counsel further submits that both parties are residents of the same village
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22631 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026 2/2 and have entered into a compromise, which forms part of the record. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedents of petitioner No. 1 are not clean, as there are two criminal cases pending against him, whereas the criminal antecedent of petitioner No. 2 is clean. Counsel also submits that the petitioners are ready to comply with all conditions whatsoever that may be imposed upon them.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the allegations of assault and injury are apparent from the order passed by the Sessions Court.
6. Upon perusal of the FIR and the rejection order, it transpires to this Court that death has been caused due to haemorrhage and shock caused by a hard and blunt object and its impact. The Trial Court has also observed that there are ample materials and direct allegations against the petitioners.
7. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Aman Kumar/- U