Balkishore Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30132 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Balkishore Yadav son of Saho Sah @ Saho Yadav Village- Matihani PSmansi District -Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP for the Informant :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 307, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added lodged on 04.05.2024 by the informant, Shivani Kumari.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant the daughter of the deceased alleged that without any provocation, the accused persons assembled and brutally assaulted her father. The further allegation is that on the order of this petitioner Bhim Yadav and Shyam Yadav gave lathi blow on the head of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30132 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 father and as he fell down this petitioner assaulted on the scrotum. The further allegation is of taking away of Rs. 25,000/- they were shifted to the Sadar Hospital, Khagaria where the informant got eighteen stitches while the father was shifted to Begusarai which followed the FIR. It later transpires that the father of the informant died during the course of treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been implicated by assigning reason of an order giver as hitting on the scrotum whereas actual allegation is on Shyam Yadav and Bhim Yadav of giving lathi blow on the head.

5. Learned APP as also the learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the prayer submitting that brutal assault took place and beside the head injury, the injuries were everywhere including the scrotum. The specific allegation is that he gave blow on the scrotum.

6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the role that the petitioner has played for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of regular bail which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Raj Ranjan/- U T