Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44363 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-477 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Yadav S/o Shiv Kumar Yadav R/o Village- Kashichak, Nakatpura, P.S- Bihar, Dist- Nalanda.

2.

Veeru Kahar @ Veeru Ram S/o Gopal Ram R/o Village- Alamganj, P.SBiharsharif, Dist- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have antecedent of eight cases and the informant alleges that on 08.10.2025 at 05:45 PM, he was coming back home when he was intercepted by three named accused persons including the petitioners along with some unknown accused near Krishna Electronics and they tried to strangulate him by a towel and assaulted by legs, fist and danda, on account of which he became unconscious.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44363 of 2026(2) dt.21-07-2026 2/2 informant, it is next submitted that on account of dispute relating to land, an alteration has taken place in which both sides assaulted each other. It is next submitted that from perusal of Annexure-4, it would manifest that earlier the dispute relating to land was settled in between the parties, but then the informant did not adhere to it.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of Annexure-3 to the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that the injury suffered by the injured has been opined to be grievous in nature and the petitioners have antecedent of eight cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T