Manjeet Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32180 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2026 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Manjeet Yadav S/o Sanjay Yadav R/o Village- Maulabag, P.S- Nawada Ara, Dist- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shiv Prasad Gupta, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 174 of 2026, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 352, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that informant while proceeding towards market on 28.02.2026, along with her son Adarsh Kumar, on account of previous enmity with the accused persons, petitioner, namely Manjeet Yadav along with co-accused, allegedly intercepted the informant. The petitioner is alleged to have opened fire causing fire-arm injury on the chest of the deceased, resulting into his death. It is further alleged that the occurrence was witnessed by Pushpendra Kumar
2/4 and Rahul Kumar.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that no allegation of firing has been attributed to the petitioner and the specific allegation of firing has been assigned to co-accused Navneet Yadav @ Loha Yadav. He has also submitted that the postmortem report does not mention any fire-arm injury sustained by the deceased, rather, the cause of death could not be ascertained and the viscera report has been sent for chemical examination. He has next submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent and that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case. The petitioner has been in custody since 02.03.2026.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail, stating therein that there is an allegation of firing against the accused persons, including the petitioner.
6. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, has recorded in the impugned order that both the accused persons had fired, which is contrary to the contents of the FIR.
7. Taking into account the entire facts and
3/4 circumstances of the case, especially the fact that, as per the FIR, the specific allegation of firing has been attributed to coaccused Navneet Yadav @ Loha Yadav and not to this petitioner, coupled with the fact that no injury has been found on the person of the deceased, let the petitioner above-named, is directed to furnish bail bond and on doing so, the court below shall release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 174 of 2026, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall cooperate in the disposal of trial.
(ii) One of the bailors must be close relatives of the petitioner such as mother, father, brother, sister or wife. (iii) The petitioner will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court and if, he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, unless he is prevented by extremely adverse circumstances, the learned court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.
(iv) Before release, the learned court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if he is found
4/4 involved in any case other than the case as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition, his bail bond will not be accepted. (v) It is also made clear that there shall not be any delay in verifying the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. (Raj Kumar, J) Nirmal/- U T