Laalu Kumar @ Yuvraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26309 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Laalu Kumar @ Yuvraj Kumar Son of Suresh Singh Resident of VillageKajibigha, P.S.- Haspura, District- Aurnagabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in in connection with Haspura P.S. Case No.261 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109(1), 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the order impugned it is recorded that petitioner has antecedent of five cases but then petitioner has antecedent of three cases. It is further submitted that at para-3, five cases have been pleaded but then it is specifically pointed out that petitioner is not an accused in Haspura P.S. Case No.110 of 2019, in this case, another Lalu Kumar, son of Kameshwar
2/4 Yadav is accused but then the order impugned take Haspura P.S. Case No.110/2019 also into consideration. It is also submitted that in Daudnagar P.S. Case No.263 of 2021 also the petitioner is not an accused. It is next submitted that petitioner is an accused in Haspura P.S. Case No.201/2021, Haspura P.S. Case No.177/2025 and Daudnagar P.S. Case No.266/2021.
4. It is next submitted that informant alleges that on 07.09.2025, the accused persons including the petitioner came at 8 P.M. and assaulted him, on alarm, his family members came, when Baijnath and Shiv Kumar assaulted the informant by rod causing injury on head and leg, while Shiv Kumar, Bablu and petitioner dashed Nitu on the ground causing injury on head and Bablu along with Kunal snatched her chain, while accused persons assaulted Umesh and Uday, on account of which, Umesh suffered four injuries on his head and leg got fractured, further petitioner along with Shiv Kumar entered the house and resorted to firing.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that no specific allegation of assault is alleged against the petitioner rather it is alleged that petitioner along with Shiv Kumar and Bablu dashed Nitu on the
3/4 ground. It is submitted that it does not appear probable that three male accused would have dashed Nitu on the ground. It is next submitted that another allegation is of resorting to firing along with Shiv Kumar but then no one was injured in the firing, as such allegation of firing is exaggerated to give seriousness to the case.
6. Learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases. It is further submitted that specific allegation of firing is against the petitioner and Shiv Kumar and during the course of investigation, empty cartridge was also recovered from the place of occurrence as stands recorded at Para-48 of the case diary. It is further submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that allegation of assault is not specific and in the firing no one was injured.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
8. The regular bail application of the petitioner is
4/4 rejected.
9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T