Mithai Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68013 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-25 Year-2025 Thana- DHANGAI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Mithai Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar S/o Late Fudan Yadav @ Fudun Yadav, R/o Mohalla- Shital Tola, P.S.- Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ishaan Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 25 of 2025 dated 07.05.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 109 and 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons went on a stage where a dance was being performed in the marriage ceremony of the son of the informant and started molesting the dancers. When the elder son of the informant went to stop them from doing so, the petitioner and co-accused persons assaulted him with knife and snatched his gold chain, mobile phone and Rs. 35,000/- in cash and fled
2/4 from the spot.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner with other co-accused persons. The informant is not an eyewitness and this fact is clear from the FIR, wherein it has been mentioned that the whole occurrence took place behind the back of the stage. Though the informant stated that he found his son unconscious in the back of the stage in a pool of blood, but, no blood was found at the place of occurrence. Though there is allegation of stabbing against petitioner and co-accused Golu Yadav, but only one injury has been found. The FIR has been sent to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate on 12.05.2025, whereas the FIR was registered on 07.05.2025 and this delay remains unexplained.
The co-accused Golu Yadav has been granted bail by a learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 66502 of 2025. Learned counsel next submits that petitioner is having antecedent of three cases and he is on bail in two cases and has been acquitted in the third case. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioner is in custody since 12.05.
3/4 case.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the non-specific nature of allegation against the petitioner and also considering his period of custody and submission of chargesheet, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Bhojpur, Ara / concerned Court, in connection with Dhangai P.S. Case No. 25 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial Court.
(iii) In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on single date or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond
4/4 of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Shahnawaz/- U T