Ambuj Yadav @ Ambuj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69615 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- BARIYARPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Ambuj Yadav @ Ambuj Kumar S/o Late Mukul Yadav @ Sunil Prasad R/o Village- Sotipul Paria, PS- Bariyarpur, Distt- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Murli Dhar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-09-2025 Heard Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 223, 121(2), 132, 109, 352, 352(2) of the BNS lodged on 30.03.2025 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, being a police officer, has alleged in the FIR that on 29.03.2025 while dealing with Bariyarpur P.S. Case No. 176/2024, the accused person. Deoraj Kumar Debu was arrested, in protest of his arrest, villagers blocked NH-333 and started demanding his release and when police personnel intervened, the mob went berserk and attacked with bricks, stones and sticks, as a result of which, the police personnel got injured and some public vehicles were
2/4 damaged. Accordingly, the present FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and as per prosecution case, the villagers started to protest against the police demanding the release of one Deoraj Kumar @ Debu for which National Highway No. 333 was blocked by them. It has next been submitted that the villagers including the petitioner have disrupted the traffic and abused the police personnel and further attacked with bricks and stones wherein some policemen and woman constables received injury. It has also been submitted that the FIR is against 40 to 50 unknown persons and 25 named accused persons, while there is no specific allegation against this petitioner. Even all the family members of the petitioner have been implicated in this case. Lastly, it has been submitted that similarly situated accused persons, namely, Amarjeet Kumar & Rohit Kumar vide Cr. Misc. No. 56441 of 2025 and Geeta Devi vide Cr. Misc. No. 60073 of 2025 (also stated in paragraph-10 of the instant petition) have been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner submitting that the petitioner along with others have tried to obstruct the police while discharging the duty and also assaulted them by way of stone
3/4 pelting in which some some policemen and woman constables received injury.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties and the fact that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and some of the similarly situated persons as stated herein-above have been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench the Court, this Court is inclined to extend his the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks, from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Munger in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty
4/4 to take steps for cancellation of the bail (iv) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T