Karan Kumar Yadav @ Karan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36947 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2025 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Karan Kumar Yadav @ Karan Yadav S/o- Chandrama Yadav Village- Kedar Parsa Ps- Rasulpur Dist- Saran at Chapra 2.
Bhikhari Yadav @ Bhuar Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav S/o- Chandrama Yadav Village- Kedar Parsa Ps- Rasulpur Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Rasulpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 329(4), 351(2), 352(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., lodged on 04.02.2025 by the informant, Ramkumari Kunwar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while her grandson was dancing on music, the accused persons came armed variously, infuriated by the alleged music, assaulted. The specific allegation is against Arjun Yadav of giving farsa blow on the head causing injury. This led to the F.I.R.
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the petitioner no.1, Karan Yadav is concerned, allegation is that he gave lathi blow, no allegation is against the petitioner no.2, Bhikhari Yadav @ Bhuar Yadav @ Sanjay Yadav and these two petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Last submission is that without accepting the allegation or outcome of the petition the petitioner intends to pay Rs.5,000/- each (totaling Rs.10,000/-) by Demand Draft to the informant towards treatment issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that though specific allegation is against Arjun Yadav and the injury has also been found to be grievous in nature, allegation of assault is against these two petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions put forward by the parties as also the fact that farsa blow injury has been attributed to Arjun Yadav, who according to learned counsel for the petitioner is in custody, these two petitioners have no criminal antecedent, F.I.R. lodged, they have undertaken to diligently appearing in trial, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- each totaling (Rs.10,000/-) by Demand Draft to
3/4 the informant issued by the local branch of State Bank of India and the receipt has to be submitted before the Trial Court and after checking credentials to be handed over to the informant.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Rasulpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., as also with the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark their attendance;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T