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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38142 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2025 Thana- Bahoranpur District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar Yadav S/O Sri Raja Ram Yadav @ Ram Ram Yadav R/O Village- Karja, P.S - Bahoranpur, District- Bhojpur at Ara. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1 Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-08-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Bahoranpur P. S. Case No.18 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on orders of Birendra and Rajaram, the petitioner fired causing firearm injury to the informant on his abdomen and his uncle also received firearm injury on his right hand as they were trying to settle the dispute in between the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38142 of 2025(5) dt.29-08-2025 2/3 petitioner and the wife of Kaushal.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the manner in which the FIR has been instituted casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that date of occurrence is 29.01.2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on the written information given by the informant to the police on 30.01.2025. It is next submitted that had the informant and his uncle be treated in a hospital, in that event, the hospital would have informed the police that the victim of firearm injury have been admitted for treatment and the fard-bayan would have been recorded at the hospital, but then, the same was not done, as such, it has been submitted that this aspect of the matter casts aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is next submitted that petitioner surrendered before the learned District Court on 01.02.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail application. It is submitted that there is specific allegation against this petitioner of causing firearm injury to the informant and his uncle.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that since the informant on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38142 of 2025(5) dt.29-08-2025 3/3 next day of the occurrence had approached the police station for instituting an FIR that amply demonstrates that either the occurrence as alleged was never committed or even if committed, the injury was simple or else the hospital would not have discharged the informant.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

8. The prayer of the petitioner for bail stands rejected.

9. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T