Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26682 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-267 Year-2025 Thana- KHAIRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Manoj Yadav S/o Anandi Yadav R/o Gangti Bisanpur, P.S. - Khaira, Dist. - Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rina Sinha, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 267 of 2025 instituted for offence under Sections 126(2), 152(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. As per the prosecution case, it has been alleged that on 25.06.2025 at around 11:00 AM, the informant and her family members requested the return of Rs. 5,000/- which they had previously lent to the accused persons. Upon this demand, the accused persons namely, Manoj

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26682 of 2026(4) dt.15-07-2026 2/3 Yadav(Petitioner) , Santosh Yadav, Sindhu Devi, and Karisma Devi began hurling abuses and severely assaulted the informant and her other family members.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. From the perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused persons. Further, it also appears that no motive has been assigned behind the occurrence in the FIR. It is also humbly submitted that the petitioner and informant are residents of the same village and due to land dispute, the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner in this case falsely.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the , petitioner Manoj Yadav assaulted the informant by means of iron rod, as a result of which she fell on the ground and sustained head injury. In the case diary, witnesses supported the factum of injury report, the injury report of concerned Krishma Devi suggests that she has sustained so many injuries. One injury on the parietal region measuring about 3x1/ 4x1/6, and the nature of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26682 of 2026(4) dt.15-07-2026 3/3 injuries are grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. It is specific allegation against petitioner that he assaulted on her head.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation as the injury inflicted upon the injured, as per the injury report suggests that the injury sustained over right parietal region, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and, as such, their prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (S. B. Pd. Singh, J) AyushU T