Mukhdev Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25516 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-198 Year-2025 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Mukhdev Yadav S/O Late Tapsi Yadav R/O Vill.- Manguraha, P.S.- Govindganj, Distt.- East Champaran.

2.

Pramod Yadav S/O Mukhdev Yadav R/O Vill.- Manguraha, P.S.- Govindganj, Distt.- East Champaran.

3.

Dhsnilal Yadav S/O Sudama Yadav R/O Vill.- Manguraha, P.S.- Govindganj, Distt.- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhannjay Kumar No.II, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 198 of 2025, for the offence under sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 351 of B.N.S., 2023 lodged on 26.07.2025, by the informant, Pramod Yadav.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that as he was sitting at his door, accused persons who are their family members came and assaulted. Allegation is that while Pramod Yadav assaulted Saroj Devi, Dhanilala Yadav assaulted Raju Yadav, her husband. This led to the FIR.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25516 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is case and counter case so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, there is allegation against him though the injury of the Saroj Devi has been found to be grievous, it is on the hand while injury inflicted by Harilal Yadav has been found to be simple in nature.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that so far as Pramod Yadav case is concerned, the injury inflicted by him has been found to be grievous.

6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner No.2, Pramod Yadav. Therefore, the prayer for bail of petitioner No.2, Pramod Yadav is rejected. So far as petitioner No.1 and 3 are concerned, having heard the respective submissions as also perused the F.I.R., no role has been assigned while the injury inflicted by these petitioners has been found to be simple in nature, this Court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1, Mukhdev Yadav and petitioner No.3, Dhsnilal Yadav. with following conditions :- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner No.1 and 3 who shall provide

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25516 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 3/3 official document (Aadhaar Card/Voter ID Card/Pan Card/Driving License) to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner No.1 and 3 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 petitioner No.1 and 3 shall appear before the concerned police station every month for six months to mark his attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner No.1 and 3 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 petitioner No.1 and 3 shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) sanjeev/- U T