Munna Yadav @ Munna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36885 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2025 Thana- Amhara P.S. (I.I.T.A. Bihta) DistrictPatna ====================================================== 1.

Munna Yadav @ Munna Kumar S/o Mithalesh Yadav @ Mithalesh Singh @ Mithlesh Kumar Singh @ Mithlesh Singh Yadav R/o vill - Dilawarpur English Tola, P.S.- IIT Amhara, Distt.- Patna 2.

Amarnath Yadav @ Amar Kumar S/o Jitendar Yadav R/o vill - Dilawarpur English Tola, P.S.- IIT Amhara, Distt.- Patna 3.

Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar Gandhi S/o Late Angad Yadav @ Angad Singh R/o vill - Dilawarpur English Tola, P.S.- IIT Amhara, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 109, 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Petitioner No. 1 has antecedent of two cases, Petitioner No. 2 is a person with clean antecedent and Petitioner No. 3 has antecedent of one case and the petitioners are in custody since 06.03.2026, 27.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 respectively. It is next

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36885 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026 2/3 submitted that the informant alleges that named accused person including the petitioners came on 15.06.2026 at 09:00 A.M. and started demolishing the boundary wall constructed behind his house, on protest, accused abused him and Mithlesh gave orders to fire, on which Gopal fired causing firearm injury to the son of the informant, namely, Sunny on his neck, further Ram Kishun, Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3 and others fired indiscriminately and fled threatening. 4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case on account of dispute relating to land, it is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then the specific allegation of firing is against Gopal, who is alleged to have fired causing firearm injury to the son of the informant. It is next submitted that even injury suffered by the son of the informant has been opined to be simple. It is further submitted that petitioners are also alleged to have fired indiscriminately, but then the said allegation is an exaggerated allegation as no one was injured in the firing. It is also submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove their innocence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36885 of 2026(2) dt.19-06-2026 3/3 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with IIT Amhara P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025.

7.

It is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that the petitioners after their release are trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge are delaying the trial, in any manner, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T