Vinod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29423 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-239 Year-2024 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Vinod Yadav Son of Bhumi Yadav Resident of Village - Dahariya, Ward No.- 09, Police Station - Chhatapur, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arun , Advocate Mrs. Maria Zazia, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with S.T. No. 407/2024 arising out of Chhatapur P.S Case No. 239/2024 dated 24.07.2024 registered for the offence punishable u/s 191(2), 191(3), 190, 329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 127(2), 103(1) and 305(a) of the B.N.S and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons along with 5-6 unknown miscreants armed with weapons were assaulting Pramod Yadav. It is further alleged that Ramesh Yadav and Kameshwar Yadav fired on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29423 of 2025(2) dt.12-05-2025 2/3 Pramod Yadav which hit his left hand. When, Ram Kumar Yadav, the brother-in-law of Pramod Yadav came to rescue, the co-accused Arvind Yadav fired at the temple of Ram Kumar Yadav who fell down and later on died. It is further alleged that all the accused persons entered the house of Pramod Yadav and took away valuables and cash worth Rs. 2 lacs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel has submitted that there was a dispute between the informant's son-in-law and the petitioner related to construction of the house. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There is no allegation of any specific overt act against the petitioner rather the specific allegation of firing is against the co-accused persons, Mukesh Yadav, Kameshwar Yadav and Arvind Yadav. The other co-accused person has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 04.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83191/2024. The petitioner has two antecedents and he is on bail in both the cases as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 10.09.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29423 of 2025(2) dt.12-05-2025 3/3
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Supaul in connection with S.T. No. 407/2024 arising out of Chhatapur P.S Case No. 239/2024.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T