Mukesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45688 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2024 Thana- NARHATT District- Nawada ====================================================== Mukesh Yadav S/O Bisheshwar Yadav R/O Village- Guruchak, P.S- Narhat, Distt.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP For the informant :
Mr. Arjun Prasad, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also the informant.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Narhat P.S. Case No. 390 of 2024 for the offence punishable under sections 115(2), 126(2), 188(1), 109, 352, 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 12.11.2024 by the informant, Ranjeet Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons resorted to beating his cousin, Sanjeet Prasad while he was having food at a stall. Allegation against Mukesh Kumar is of hitting on the head with sword which was repeated and when he tried to save his head by right hand, the same was injured. He was taken to Hisua Primary Health Centre and later to Nawada. This led to the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45688 of 2025(2) dt.30-07-2025 2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lacerated wound is there and there was no reason to assault him nor it has been recorded though he has criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the prayer and has taken this Court to the injury report to submit that the Doctor has opined the injuries to be grievous in nature.
5. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the fact that the injured, Sanjeet Prasad has suffered grievous injury, in that background, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T