Ramesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53003 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2024 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.
Ramesh Yadav S/O Sivadhar Yadav R/O Village- Mahuli, P.S- Ara Muffasil, Distt.- Bhojpur (Bihar).
2.
Umesh Yadav S/O Sivadhar Yadav R/O Village- Mahuli, P.S- Ara Muffasil, Distt.- Bhojpur (Bihar).
3.
Ram Pukar Yadav @ Ram Preet Yadav S/O Sivadhar Yadav R/O VillageMahuli, P.S- Ara Muffasil, Distt.- Bhojpur (Bihar). 4.
Dhanji Yadav S/O Umesh Yadav R/O Village- Mahuli, P.S- Ara Muffasil, Distt.- Bhojpur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a copy of the order impugned is being submitted in the Court and from perusal of the same, it would manifest that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Bhojpur at Ara has corrected the date of signing as 09.09.2024. The order impugned is taken on record, as such, the defect, as pointed out by the office, is
2/4 hereby ignored.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that the accused persons including the petitioners came, abused and assaulted the side of the informant including his son by means of deadly weapons on account of which they sustained injuries. It is further submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all. It is next submitted that petitioners and the informant are neighbours. It is also submitted that as per FIR, there is specific allegation against Umesh Yadav (petitioner no. 2), Ramesh Yadav (petitioner no. 1) and Ram Pukar Yadav (petitioner no. 3) to assault the informant causing injury on his head. Further, they also assaulted Munna Yadav when he was trying to help the son of the informant, namely, Abhishek Yadav who was also assaulted and had fallen on the ground.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that no reason for the occurrence has been assigned. It is further submitted that even allegation of assault is not specific rather all the accused have been alleged to have assaulted the injured. It is next submitted that the injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature, except that of informant but
3/4 then though the petitioners are alleged to have assaulted but allegation of assault is not specific. It is also submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their innocence. It is submitted that coaccused Surendra Yadav had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 77619 of 2024 and the same was allowed by a learend Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2024.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, let the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 108 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
8. However, if the investigating officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its
4/4 notice that the petitioners despite giving assurance to this Court are not cooperating in the investigation, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T