Pintu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20849 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Pintu Yadav S/o- Late Lakhan Yadav @ Lakhanlal Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria 2.
Banti Yadav @ Banti Kumar S/o- Sunil Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria 3.
Sanni Kumar S/o- Sunil Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari, DistrictKhagaria 4.
Kare Yadav S/o- Late Anandi Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria 5.
Pankaj Yadav S/o- Late Anandi Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria 6.
Pawan Yadav @ Pawan Kumar S/o- Late Anandi Yadav Village- Chhoti Mallya, P.S. Gogari, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 317 of 2025, G.R. No. 3359 of 2025 for the offence registered under sections 190, 191(2), 109(1), 117(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 03.12.2025, there was a wedding in the family but the
2/4 petitioners who wanted to disturb the marriage came armed variously and destroyed the pandal setup for the said wedding.
4. Allegation is that Sintu Yadav assaulted Manoj Kumar on the head with the iron rod causing injury whereas Pawan assaulted Bittu again on the head causing injury. Allegation against Deepak Kumar is of hitting Sunil Yadav on his hand while Bablu Yadav snatched gold locket and there is also allegation on Mangal Yadav of taking away Rs. 20,000/-. This led to the FIR.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that both are agnates, the informant's side have suffered grievous injury, so far as the injury inflicted to the informant's side from the petitioners are concerned, it has been found to be simple in nature, the injury records are part of the record as Annexure-2 series. The last submission is that the petitioners do not have criminal antecedent.
6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that on the day of marriage in the family, they tried to disturb it and allegation of assault is also there.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the fact that there is case and counter case, none have criminal
3/4 antecedent, injury has been found to be simple in nature, as submitted by the petitioners' counsel, in that background, this Court is inclined to grant them the anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioners in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 317 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID) to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark
4/4 attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be submitted to the Court;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T