Satynarayan Yadav @ Jhunjhun v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26566 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-546 Year-2025 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna ====================================================== Satynarayan Yadav @ Jhunjhun S/o Late Rambabu Yadav Resident of Village- South Street Near Chiraiyantand, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sheonandan Pandit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sheonandan Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Subhash Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 28.03.2025 in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 546 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 21.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 109 of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner over a petty dispute has fired upon the husband of the informant resulting into his death. It is further alleged that earlier also this petitioner has thrown acid upon the elder daughter of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26566 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the deceased, namely, Suraj Yadav who happens to be uncle of the petitioner. Apart from that, the witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution and the postmortem report of the deceased also supports the allegation as alleged in the FIR.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner supported by the medical evidence as well as inquest report, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 546 of 2025 pending in the court of learned ACJM-XI cum CJ(S.D) XI, Patna.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T