Suletan Yadav @ Ranvir Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44912 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-441 Year-2024 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Suletan Yadav @ Ranvir Yadav S/O Bisho Yadav Resident of VillageBhuriya Tadi, Ward No 22, PS- Gogri, District- Khagaria 2.
Dharambir Yadav S/O Bisho Yadav Resident of Village- Bhuriya Tadi, Ward No 22, PS- Gogri, District- Khagaria 3.
Bisho Yadav S/O Late Geno Yadav Resident of Village- Bhuriya Tadi, Ward No 22, PS- Gogri, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard Mr. Rahul Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, learned APP for the State. 2.The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 441 of 2024 instituted for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner no.2 namely, Dharambir Yadav, instigated Kumod Yadav to kill. Bisho Yadav also instigated him. On their instigation, Kumod Yadav fired at the informant. He made two fires- one of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44912 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/3 shots hit the informant in the right hand, and the other hit him on the chest. Th allegation against the petitioner no. 1 namely, Suletan Yadav is that he took Rs. 20,000/- from the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. They have falsely been implicated in this case. He also submits that, in this case, the main thrust of allegation is against Kumod Yadav. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are only having allegations of instigation, whereas Suletan Yadav @ Ranbir Yadav is having the allegation of snatching Rs. 20,000/-, which appears to be super-addition. It has also been submitted that this is the occurrence of 28.11.2024, whereas the FIR was been lodged on 15.12.2024. The delay is not explained. It has lastly been submitted that a statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent.
5. In contra, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail of the petitioners and has submitted that two fires have been in this case. Learned APP has got no objection to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that fires were made by Kumod Yadav, who is not the petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44912 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 3/3
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Gogri P.S. Case No. 441 of 2024, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T