Mananjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49890 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2025 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Mananjay Yadav S/o Ram Parikha Yadav @ Ramprikha Singh R/o VillageNandgau (Suhawal), P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP For the Informant/s :
Mr. Viveka Nand Vivek, Adv.
Mr. Rangnath Pandey, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2025, dated 06.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 76, 352 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 05.03.2025, the petitioner along with other co-accused person, variously armed, came at the house of informant and abused the informant and his family members and on gun point took away a box from his courtyard. It is further alleged that the co-accused fired with his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49890 of 2025(2) dt.29-08-2025 2/3 katta on the informant, but the bullet did not hit the informant and the petitioner assaulted the informant's brother by means of iron-rod and also snatched golden chain from the neck of his brother's wife and threatened them with dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity and land dispute. It is further submitted that no witness has supported the prosecution case. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. The co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37889 of 2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that the allegation of hitting the brother of informant by means of iron-rod is attributed against the petitioner and the injury report of informant's brother reveals that he suffered three injuries and out of three injuries two were opined to be grievous in nature while one was opined to be simple in nature.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the specific nature of offence against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49890 of 2025(2) dt.29-08-2025 3/3 petitioner. It is not fit case for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within six weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order.
7. This application is rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T