Kripanand Yadav @ Krityanand Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38098 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2026 Thana- JADIA District- Supaul ====================================================== Kripanand Yadav @ Krityanand Yadav son of Avadh Yadav @ Abadh Lal yadav Resident of Village- Jadiya, Ps- Ward no. 14, Ps- Jadia, Dist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 22.03.2026, in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026, G.R. No. 630 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 08.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.03.2026 the informant's son Mahesh Kumar was called to an isolated location by the nine accused named in the F.I.R. and assaulted by teer, fatta, iron rod etc. Accused Prince Kumar pulled a pistol from his waist and shot Mahesh in head with interntion to

2/4 kill him. He fell unconscious and was taken to Hospital by local people.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. at serial no. 3 but there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner rather there is specific allegation of firing attributed against co-accused person, namely Prince Kumar who has fired upon the son of the informant, namely, Mahesh Kumar and he has received injury and the petitioner has been made accused in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2026.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated the present crime in question and apart from aforesaid, the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one but

3/4 fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Jadia P.S. Case No. 37 of 2026, G.R. No. 630 of 2026, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

4/4 acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T