Vinod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43686 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-396 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Vinod Kumar Son of Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village - Jaipalpatti, Ward No.- 15, Madhepura, P.S.- Madhepura, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate Mr. Dhandev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kr. Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Durgesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rameshwar Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2025 Heard Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as Mr. Yogendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.) P.S. Case No. 396 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 26.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 308(4), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, due to some land dispute this petitioner on the order of co-accused, Rajendra

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43686 of 2025(2) dt.24-07-2025 2/3 Yadav brutally assaulted the informant and his brother due to which they sustained grievous injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offences as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R that due to some admitted land dispute the present occurrence has taken place. There is case and counter case between the parties. Although there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted to the informant and his family members but no injury report is available on record to suggest that same. He further submits that the petitioner is a government employee and he was not present at the place of occurrence.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted to the informant and his brother, namely, Bimal Kumar. Learned senior counsel for the informant has produced

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43686 of 2025(2) dt.24-07-2025 3/3 the final injury report of the injured persons which suggest that the injuries received by the injured persons are grievous in nature.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.) P.S. Case No. 396 of 2025 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T