Chandradeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33601 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-22 Year-2025 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

Chandradeo Yadav Son of Bhikhar Yadav Resident of Village Jahangira Police Station Gangaur District Khagaria 2.

Amit Raj @ Amit Kumar Son of Chandradeo Yadav Resident of Village Jahangira Police Station Gangaur District Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ADVOCATE GENERAL BUILDING PATNA HIGH COURT ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mritunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Khagaria P.S. Case No. 22 of 2025 registered under Sections 109, 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25(1-B)(i),26, 27 & 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegedly, the accused persons including the petitioner having armed with weapon, came at the house of the informant and indiscriminate firing was made, as a result of which, the wife of the informant received fire-arm injury on her right leg. The gold chain of wife of the informant is also said to have been snatched away.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33601 of 2025(5) dt.13-10-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. There is land dispute between the informant and one of the co-accused. The petitioners have nothing to do with the present occurrence. They have been implicated in the present case due to land dispute. The informant and his wife are habitual in lodging of cases with a view to blackmail others. As matter of fact, the informant himself opened fire which hit at the leg of his wife. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the accused persons including the petitioners made indiscriminate firing as a result of which, the wife of informant sustained fire-arm injury on her leg but he concedes the that there is specific allegation against the petitioner No. 1 of opening fire whereas no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner No. 2.

6. Having gone through the rival contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State, let the petitioner No. 2, above named, in the event of arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33601 of 2025(5) dt.13-10-2025 3/3 Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with Khagaria P.S. Case No. 22 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./ 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.

7. So far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, as there is specific allegation against him, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T