Jai Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58632 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-416 Year-2024 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.
Jai Narayan Yadav S/O Subodh Yadav @ Subod Yadav Resident of VillageSonhan, Police Station- Keoti, District- Darbhanga. 2.
Anil Yadav @ Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Jai Narayan Yadav Resident of Village- Sonhan, Police Station- Keoti, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 29-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 416 of 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 126(2)/ 115(2)/ 109/ 351(2)/ 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the named accused persons including the petitioner came to his land variously armed with axe and garasa and thereafter they assaulted the father of the informant by hitting him on his head. It is further alleged that the accused persons snatched the mobile phone of the informant and even assaulted him with wooden danda.
2/4
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 there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Learned counsel next submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR does not find corroboration with the injury report of the father of the informant wherein three injuries were found but none on the head, instead it was on the right hand, lower lip and over the chest. Learned counsel further submits that though the informant has stated that he had taken his father to D.M.C.H. for treatment, however, no fard-beyan was recorded by the police and subsequently a typed report was filed in the present case. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has 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 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
3/4 where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Keoti P.S. Case No. 416 of 2024 , 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 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
4/4 delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. (Sourendra Pandey, J) tusharika/- U T