Anuj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42110 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-403 Year-2024 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Anuj Yadav S/o Biro @ Birendra Yadav Residence of Village Mansaarpur, Industrial Area, P.S.- Sabour, District-Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pravin Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sabour P.S. Case No. 403 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that while he was returning home with Anuja and another, when they were intercepted by the accused person and the accused persons assaulted him by knife four times on his stomach and once on head. 4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42110 of 2025(2) dt.09-07-2025 2/2 petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then the injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is allegation of assaulting the informant by knife four times on his stomach and once on head. It is next submitted that injuries merely have been opined to be simple, but then the same has to be tested in the trial.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T