Vinit Yadav @ Vineet Kumar @ Vinit Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42832 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- PARBATTA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Vinit Yadav @ Vineet Kumar @ Vinit Kumar Yadav Son of Lelu Yadav @ Laldev Yadav Resident of Village - Jagatpur, P.S-Parbatta, District-Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 24.01.2026 in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 3 (5) of the B.N.S.
3. According to prosecution case, one Soni Devi, Wife of Ranjeet Yadav, Resident of Village Garaiya, P.S.-Parbatta, District- Bhagalpur gave written report on 03/01/2026 S.H.O. Parbatta instituted F.I.R. against above named petitioner and one others vide Parbatta P.S. Case No. 02/2026. It has further stated that the informant's husband Ranjit Yadav was milking a buffalo in his house, when suddenly Suresh Yadav, Amit Yadav, Sachin Yadav, Nisha Kumari, Vineet Yadav, Gholti Yadav, Deli Yadav, Kaushalya Devi, Mukesh Rajak all armed with Lathi, Iron Roads, Sharp weapons and sharp weapons came and started
2/4 assaulting the informant's husband and during the assault, Amit Yadav hit the informant's husband on the head with a sharp sickle in his hand due to which the informant's husband fell on the ground bleeding and all of them ran away from there. It has further stated that the informant then picked up her husband Ranjit Yadav in an injured condition and went for treatment she was admitted to the hospital in Naugachia from where considering her serious condition she was referred to J.L.N.C.H. Bhagalpur, from where considering her critical condition, she was referred to AIIMS Patna and while being taken to Patna by ambulance husband Ranjit Yadav died on the way.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence has taken place. It is next submitted that FIR is in two parts; in first part there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and in second part there is specific allegation against Amit Yadav that he has assaulted by means of tengari to the husband of the informant and during treatment the husband of the informant has died. It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt
3/4 act attributed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that charge has been framed against the petitioner on 26.05.2026 and petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is named in the FIR and the petitioner has antecedent of one case other than the present case but fairly submits that petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ist, Naugachia, Bhagalpur/Successor Court in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 2 of 2026, subject to the following conditions:- i. 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. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
4/4 witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. 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 antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the 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) Gaurav Sinha/- U T