Kunal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33788 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2025 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Kunal Yadav S/o Lalan Yadav R/o Village - Jamui, PS - Dulhin Bazar, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shyam Kishore, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Kaustubh Prakash, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No.184 of 2025 for allegedly having committed offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the First Information Report, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to the effect that due to previous land dispute, his neighbours named in the First Information Report, including the petitioner came to his house, armed with weapons like iron rod and khanti and started using filthy language and abusing the
2/4 informant. When the informant tried to stop them, the accused persons assaulted the son and wife of the informant, due to which both of them became unconscious. It has been alleged that co-accused, Pawan Kumar snatched gold jewellery from the ear and neck of the wife of the informant. With the help of the villagers, the injured were taken to Dulhin Bazar Hospital and from where they were referred to AIIMS, Patna for better treatment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and no such occurrence has taken place. It is submitted that from the First Information Report itself it would appear that the petitioner and the informant are neighbour and there is a land dispute in between them from before. He further submits that the allegation of assault has been levelled against all the accused persons and specific allegation of snatching the earring and gold chain from the wife of the informant has been levelled against co-accused, Pawan Kumar. He further submits that from the injury report of the injured, it would transpire that the doctor found the injuries to be simple in nature, except injury no.1, which is on the hand of the injured namely Jitendra Kumar, to be grievous in nature. He further submits that the petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
3/4
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that due to land dispute, the petitioner and others assaulted the informant, his wife and his son, due to which they sustained injuries and the doctor has found one of the injuries sustained by Jitendra Kumar, the son of the informant, to be grievous in nature. He further submits that all the injured have been treated at hospital.
6. The learned A.P.P. for the State also opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that one of the injuries have been found to be grievous in nature by the treating doctor.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and after going through the records as well as the case diary and the injury report, it would transpire that the injuries sustained by injured Parvati Devi and Upendra Kumar have been found to be simple in nature by the treating doctor. So far injury no.1, which is swelling of left hand and fracture of 4th and 5th metacarpal, the same has been found to be grievous in nature by the treating doctor, however the same is not on the vital part of the body. Further, there is an admitted land dispute in between the parties.
8. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
4/4 within a period of six weeks, 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 the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, Patna in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No.184 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further condition that:- The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of his bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.) Sanjay/- U T