Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48478 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2024 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar Yadav S/o Rajendra Yadav R/o VillageKaunbank, P.S.- Sono, Dist.- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Akash Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-08-2025 Heard Mr. Akash Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 393 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 18.11.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 74, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the First Information Report, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons came at his house and assaulted her. When other people of the house came to save her, the accused persons assaulted them also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48478 of 2025(2) dt.07-08-2025 2/3 implicated in the present case. There is case and counter case between the parties and it appears from the FIR that due to admitted land dispute the present occurrence has taken place. As per the FIR the allegation against the petitioner is that he gave tangi blow over the head of Ritesh Kumar and Ritesh Kumar received serious injury. He further submits that the allegations as alleged is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Although the said Ritesh Kumar has received injury but his injury is simple in nature.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR and apart from that Ritesh Kumar has received injury.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has clean antecedent and the injury inflicted upon the injured person is simple in nature, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Jamui in connection with Sono
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48478 of 2025(2) dt.07-08-2025 3/3 P.S. Case No. 393 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T