Sonu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61230 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-254 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Sonu Yadav S/o Lalan Yadav Resident of Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist.- East Champaran 2.

Guddu Yadav S/o Jay Lal Yadav Resident of Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist.- East Champaran 3.

Baban Yadav S/o Ramadhar Yadav Resident of Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist.- East Champaran 4.

Jay Lal Yadav S/o Late Ram Chandra Yadav Resident of Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist.- East Champaran 5.

Madhuri Devi W/o Jay Lal Yadav Resident of Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist.- East Champaran 6.

Sobha Devi W/o Nagendra Yadav Resident of Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Paharpur, Dist.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. At the outset, in view of the direct allegation against petitioner no.1 Sonu Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks to withdraw the prayer for bail on behalf of petitioner no.1.

3. Accordingly, the prayer for bail on behalf of petitioner no.1 Sonu Yadav stands dismissed as withdrawn.

2/4

4. The petitioner nos. 2 to 6 seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No. 254 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 118(1), 352 and 351(3) of the BNS.

5. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., the petitioners are said to have assaulted the mother of the informant and his other family members brutally inflicting multiple injury. The injury sustained by the victim as per the opinion of the doctor is grievous in nature.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are own family members and have been made accused just out of the vengeance. In absence of specific overt act against them in the F.I.R. and also no material has been collected against them in course of investigation, learned counsel seeks that the petitioners be released on bail. Petitioners have clean antecedent.

7. Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel has tendered his appearance on behalf of the informant and has vehemently opposed submitting that all the accused persons including the petitioners with common intention to kill the

3/4 informant and other family members assaulted them in which mother of the informant got brutally assaulted causing injury on different parts of the body, as well as, on the face. The doctor has opined that the injuries are grievous in nature.

8. Learned APP for the State has supported the argument advanced on behalf of the informant.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the F.I.R. and the material which has surfaced in course of investigation, only minuscule evidence has been collected against the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 and the allegation levelled against them is general and omnibus, the petitioner nos. 2 to 6, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending in connection with Paharpur P.S. Case No. 254 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C / 482(2) BNSS.

10. The District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 and if it is found

4/4 that the petitioner nos. 2 to 6 are involved in some other cases as what has been stated in Para-3 of the bail petition, this order will automatically lose its force.

11. The bail application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) mantreshwar/- U T