Dharmendra Yadav @ Dharmendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55973 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2024 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Dharmendra Yadav @ Dharmendra Kumar, (Male), aged about 30 years, S/o Chandrma Yadav, R/o village- Raghunipur, P.S - Udwantnagar, DistrictBhojpur ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Anant Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party :
Mr. Umanath Mishra, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-09-2025 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 131 of 2024 dated 02.04.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Ars Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 02.04.2024 at about 6.00 A.M., while the informant alongwith her brother-in-law (Dewars) Jagesh Yadav, Mukesh Yadav, the father-in-law Ramadhar Yadav (deceased), the brother-in-law (Dewar)
2/6 Bhajendra Yadav and the sister-in-law (Gotani) Baby Devi were going to their field for cutting the crops of Jwar and wheat and they were cutting the said crops, in the meantime, at 7.30 P.M.
, the co-accused Binod Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav (petitioner), Chandrama Yadav, Aman Yadav, Chaman Yadav, Nitish Yadav, Judge Yadav, Suresh Yadav, Sharma Yadav, Ranjeet Yadav, Bir Bahadur Yadav, Manish Yadav and Tej Bahadur Yadav came and Binod Yadav was having double barrel gun in his hand, Judge Yadav, Suresh Yadav and Aman Yadav was having rifle in their hands, Chandrama Yadav, Chaman Yadav, Nitish Yadav, Manish Yadav was having country made katta in their hands and Ranjit Yadav was having one barrel gun in his hand and on the order of the co-accused Sharma Yadav, Bir Bahadur Yadav and Tej Bahadur Yadav, all the accused persons started indiscriminate firing on the informant and her family members.
3/6 field near the Canal. On hulla, the nearby people came thereafter, the accused persons fled away towards east and north direction. It is further alleged that on information, police officals also came then the accused persons also fired on them. Police apprehended some miscreants with arms and ammunition and some miscreants succeeded in escaping. It is further alleged that prior to the present occurrence, Binod Rai, Suresh Yadav, Dharmendra Yadav (petitioner), Tej Bahadur Yadav and Bir Bahadur Yadav have committed murder of the informant's elder father-in-law, namely, late Ram Sevak Yadav and her brother-inlaw (Dewar) late Santosh Yadav after kidnapping them for which Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 230 of 2009 was lodged against them and they also committed murder of Sarita Devi for which Udwantnagar P.S. Case No.
213 of 2010 was lodged against them. It is further alleged by the informant that all the accused persons in conspiracy with each other have committed murder of Mukesh Yadav the brother-in-law (Dewar) and Ramadhar Yadav the father-in-law of the informant for grabbing the land of the family members of the informant.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is no
4/6 specific allegation of firing on Mukesh Yadav the brother-in-law and Ramadhar Yadav the father-in-law of the informant against the petitioner. There is general and omnibus allegation against nine accused persons of indiscriminate firing on the informant and her family members. The informant does not claim to be an eye witness to the alleged offence and she has not disclosed the source of her information. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no animosity or motive for committing the occurrence. The petitioner has inimical terms with the informant and due to this reason, she has lodged the present false case against the petitioner and other co-accused persons.
It is further submitted that Vijendra Kumar who is the husband of the informant Rinku Devi, Yogesh Yadav and Vijendra Kumar, sons of the deceased Ramadhar Yadav had opened fire on the petitioner Dharmendra Kumar causing injuries to him for which Shahpur P.S. Case No. 265 of 2025 was lodged on 24.06.2025. There is no overt act alleged against the petitioner. It is submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the other co-accused person, namely, Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish Yadav, has already been granted regular bail by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.
5/6 07.08.2025. The petitioner has four criminal antecedents as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons fired on the informant and her family members, due to which, Mukesh Yadav the brother-in-law (Dewar) and Ramadhar Yadav, the father-in-law of the informant died.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of allegation against the petitioner, the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ara in connection with Udwantnagar P.S. Case No. 131 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with further condition:- (I) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned court below on each and every date, failing which
6/6 on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T