Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28253 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2026 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Manoj Yadav @ Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Bhogilal Yadav R/o Village - Mahraji Ward No. 15, PS - Jankinagar, District - Purnea 2.

Vinod Yadav S/o Bhogilal Yadav R/o Village - Mahraji Ward No. 15, PS - Jankinagar, District - Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rupesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. In the present case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jankinagar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026 registered for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of BNS.

3. As per prosecution case, the petitioners and other co-accused persons came to the house of the informant and they were armed with deadly weapons. They forcibly tried to cut the thatched boundary. When the act of the accused persons was opposed, they assaulted the father and uncle of the informant with iron rod and sword causing injury of fracture of

2/4 their head.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged that the petitioners Manoj Yadav and Vinod Yadav assaulted the father and uncle of the informant with iron rod and sword, respectively but the injury reports do not show any sharp cut injury as injuries are stated to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance. Learned counsel further submits that there is admitted land dispute between the parties. Wife of petitioner no. 1, Ranju Devi, lodged Jankinagar P.S. Case No. 14 of 2026 for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 352, 3(5) of BNS. Before lodging of the counter case, a panchayati was held which was not attended by the informant's side, who subsequently lodged case against the petitioners and others.

Learned counsel further submits that the parties are agnates and there is pending land dispute between them. Earlier Title Suit No. 168 of 1996 was filed against the father of the petitioners which was decided on 11.09.2019 in favour of the petitioners. Ranju Devi and her husband, i.e., petitioner Manoj Yadav, both received injuries but there is no explanation for the same. The informant side is aggressor.

3/4 Yadav and Umesh Yadav has been found to be grievous. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner no. 2 is having clean antecedent whereas petitioner no. 1 is having antecedent of three cases but all these have been lodged by the agnates due to land dispute and in one such case petitioner no. 1 has been acquitted and the second case has been settled in Lok Adalat and in third case, petitioner no. 1 is on bail.

5. Learned APP opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the case and its counter version and further considering the nonserious nature of injuries and also considering the possibility of false implication, let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnea/concerned court in connection with Jankinagar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2026, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions:

4/4 (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T