Mithlesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51641 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2025 Thana- KONCH District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Mithlesh Yadav S/O Ramsaran Yadav R/O Village- Konch, P.S- Konch, Distt.- Gaya.
2.
Bali Yadav S/O Etwaar Yadav R/O Village- Konch, P.S- Konch, Distt.- Gaya.
3.
Mukesh Yadav S/O Bali Yadav R/O Village- Konch, P.S- Konch, Distt.- Gaya.
4.
Jethani Devi @ Shanti Devi W/O Ramsaran Yadav R/O Village- Konch, P.SKonch, Distt.- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ramakant Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bharat Lal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109 and 352 of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, while the informant was at his home, around eight intoxicated accused persons, including petitioners, came to informant Munnilal Yadav's home and talked to Mital Yadav. Subsequently, Neeraj
2/4 Yadav and Mital Yadav assaulted Birendra Yadav and Munnilal Yadav with lathis, causing head injuries and bleeding. Bali Yadav (petitioner no. 2) also attacked the informant with lathi causing injury on his waist and head.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. Further submission is that injury sustained by Munnilal Yadav are found to be simple in nature and so does the others. Learned counsel next submits that there is no specific allegation levelled against petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4. It is lastly submitted that petitioner no. 1 has one criminal antecedent against his name and he is on bail in the said case and rest all the petitioners have clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
3/4 furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Konch P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond. (v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
4/4 stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. (Sourendra Pandey, J) tusharika/- U T