Dingal Yadav @ Diggal Yadav @ Shashi Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29618 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2023 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger ====================================================== Dingal Yadav @ Diggal Yadav @ Shashi Kumar S/O Mohan Yadav R/O Village- Singhiya Jainpur, P.S.- Naya Ram Nagar, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mrs. Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026 Heard Mr. Manohar Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Gulnar Begum, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 19.07.2025, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 501 of 2025 arising out of Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 09.07.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused person fired two round upon the Scorpio car with desi katta, somehow the informant's son survived.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

2/4 petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the informant herself stated in the F.I.R. that due to previous dispute the present occurrence had taken place. Although, there is specific allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused person that they have fired upon the son of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to previous land dispute, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and no one has received injury in the present occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2025..

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries nine more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that out of nine cases, the petitioner is on bail in six cases and rest three cases, the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Trial court.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

3/4 case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Munger in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 501 of 2025 arising out of Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2023, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) One of the bailors should be the family member of the petitioner.

(2) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(3) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(4) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T