Naresh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32746 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== Naresh Yadav S/o Chhathi Lal Yadav R/o Village- Hiranibagh, Mishrawaliya, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Mili Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chapra (M) P.S. Case No.19 of 2025 instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 324(4), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he gave farsa blow on the head of the informant causing head injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is case and counter case between both the parties for the same offence. The informant's side is aggressor and injury sustained by the informant is caused by hard and blunt substance. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32746 of 2025(2) dt.19-05-2025 2/2
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by contending that the injury sustained by the informant on his head is grievous in nature which corroborates the prosecution case. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injury sustained by the informant on his head which is grievous and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has made the said injury to the informant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Harish/- U T