Ram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20934 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2026 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== 1.

Ram Yadav, S/o Gumani Yadav, R/o Village - Mahadev Nagar, Golden Chowk, P.S - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura 2.

Gumani Yadav, S/o Siya Yadav, R/o Village - Mahadev Nagar, Golden Chowk, P.S - Sheikhpura, District - Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Informant :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-04-2026 Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 12 of 2026, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioners along with other co-accused persons, had tried to kidnap the minor son of the informant and when the minor son of the informant tried to escape, they had allegedly assaulted him

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20934 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026 2/3 causing grievous injury.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. The present case is a counter blast of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 4 of 2026 lodged from the side of the petitioner, which shows that the occurrence was a case of free fight. No specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Considering the specific allegation against petitioner no. 1, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1 on pre-arrest bail.

7. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, in absence of any specific allegation of assault or having tried to kidnap the minor son of the informant against him, the petitioner no. 2, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20934 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026 3/3 sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 12 of 2026, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2 as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioner no. 2 as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.

9. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T