Bablu Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33520 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2022 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar ====================================================== Bablu Kumar Yadav @ Bablu Yadav S/o Vidhichandra Yadav R/o Mohna Chandpur, P.S.- Barari, Distt- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kunwar Ajit Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Barari (Semapur) P.S Case No.135 of 2022, dated 21-05-2022, registered for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.05.2022, while the informant's son, Vikas Yadav @ Vika Yadav, was returning home on tractor from Semapur Bazar after unloading maize, he was intercepted at Govind Chowk by the petitioner along with two others, who came on a motorcycle. It is alleged that co-accused Rahul Yadav opened fire on the informant's son and killed him. Immediately thereafter, all the three accused persons fled away from the spot. The FIR further states that a few days prior to the occurrence, the accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33520 of 2025(3) dt.06-08-2025 2/2 persons had threatened the deceased not to drive the tractor of Mohan Thakur.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is a specific allegation against co-accused Rahul Yadav, who fired on the body of the informant's son. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner; rather, the only allegation is that he was accompanying co-accused Rahul Yadav at the time of the occurrence. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2025 and has no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, in connection with Barari (Semapur) P.S. Case No.135 of 2022.

(Khatim Reza, J) shyambihari/- U T