Anup Yadav @ Anoop Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67473 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2025 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Anup Yadav @ Anoop Yadav Son of Sanjay Yadav Resident of Village - Bairiya Tola Hussainpur, P.S.- Kateya, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 73319 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2025 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Vikash Yadav Son of Awadhesh Yadav Resident of Village Nawalpur, Bairiya, P.S.- Kateya, District - Gopalganj, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67473 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Bilash Roy Raman, A.P.P.

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 73319 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shekhar Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Hari Om, Mr. P.Shekhar, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per prosecution case, these petitioners assaulted informant's son with knife causing his death during treatment.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67473 of 2025(3) dt.10-12-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the post mortem report is manipulated. Petitioners claim clean antecedent and they are in custody since 28.4.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the State and the informant oppose the prayer for bail. They submit that FIR clearly reflects that these petitioners are main assailants of the deceased and post mortem report fully corroborates the allegations made in the FIR.

6. Considering the gravity of accusation as well as the materials collected during course of investigation, prayer for bail of these petitioners is refused.

7. Petitioners are in custody, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a year.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T