Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Kumar @ Virendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20978 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2024 Thana- Mau District- Gaya ====================================================== Birendra Yadav @ Birendra Kumar @ Virendra Yadav Son of Pundev Yadav @ Punyadev Yadav Resident of village -Kurkut Bihga PS- Mau DistrictGaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-04-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State.
2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS, 2023') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Mau P.S. Case No. 7 of 2024, lodged on 05.04.2024, under Sections 147/148/341/323/324/307/ 325 /342 /427/504/506 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against ten named accused persons including the present petitioner. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with two other persons have assaulted Binod Sharma, due to which the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20978 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 2/2 Binod Sharma sustained injury.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean. Counsel submits that one co-accused, namely, Ranjeet Yadav against whom there is direct allegation of assault has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.88155 of 2024.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the case of the petitioner is not as like of Ranjeet Yadav Yadav as the Court has granted bail on the ground that the blow was not repeated and injury was simple whereas in the present case the allegation of repeated blow of iron rod is there.
6. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is hereby rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T