Rajesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44903 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2024 Thana- SIMULTALLA District- Jamui ====================================================== Rajesh Yadav S/o- Late Arjun Yadav, R/o Village- Fatehpur, P.S.-Simultala, District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Devika Rani, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Simultala P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, dated 23.10.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 110, 308(3), 308(4), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 22.10.2024 at about 04:00 PM, altogether five persons including the informant were working in the construction work of a drainage in the village of the informant, meanwhile the petitioner along with Arjun Pandit and five to six unknown persons came there and demanded Rs. 300000/- as rangdari, otherwise they would not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44903 of 2025(2) dt.30-07-2025 2/3 allow the construction work to proceed. Thereafter, the petitioner assaulted on the hand of Titu Pandit by means of piperod due to which his wrist was fractured. The co-accused persons also assaulted other co-workers. Arjun Pandit, on gunpoint, asked the informant to sit in the Scorpio and they were intending to kill him taking him away in the forest, however, informant's wife and daughter started raising hulla because of which informant managed to flee.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he assaulted on the hand of Titu Pandit by means of pipe-rod, however, no injury was found on the injured person. The similarly situated co-accused person namely, Arjun Pandit has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8931 of 2025. The petitioner carries 15 criminal antecedents as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44903 of 2025(2) dt.30-07-2025 3/3 opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as petitioner's period of custody, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui, in connection with Simultala P.S. Case No. 84 of 2024, on further conditions:

(i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned trial Court on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. (ii) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Shahnawaz/- U T