Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50240 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2024 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger ====================================================== Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Kumar Yadav S/o Upendra Yadav R/o VillHerudiyara, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, Distt- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma For the Informant :

Mr. Ratnakar Ambastha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 15-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 278/2024 dated 29.09.2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 103(1) read with section 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that one Samrat Yadav who is the son of the informant, was called by one Dilip Yadav and Badshah Yadav in the night and the deceased did not return. Subsequently, the informant found the dead body of her son with marks of assault on his head. The cause of the occurrence has been stated in the first information report as a dispute with the co-accused Dilip Yadav and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50240 of 2025(6) dt.15-11-2025 2/3 Badshah Yadav with regard to blocking of the bridge for which they had threatened the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused Chandan Kumar which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The petitioner is working as constable in C.I.S.F. There is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. There is no any material against the petitioner except suspicion. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 30.06.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner by submitting that as per the statement of the co-accused Shivshankar Pandit, mentioned in para 82 of the case diary, there is specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased with iron rod on his head. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage, shock and injury to vital organ brain caused by hard and blunt substance.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50240 of 2025(6) dt.15-11-2025 3/3 of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. The application stands rejected.

8. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

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