Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69203 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDAUTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Dinesh Yadav @ Dinesh Prasad S/o Late Baldeo Yadav R/o Village- Kandi Nawada, P.S - Chandauti, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No. 182 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 126 (2), 115 (2), 109, 117(2), 74 of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the named accused persons, including the petitioner, have assaulted the informant's son, Mantu, Pintu and her wife Kiran Devi. It has been submitted that accused Rajesh Yadav and Vicky assaulted informant on his knee with iron rod, while Umesh Yadav and Dinesh Yadav (petitioner) started beating the informant's son Pintu. It is further alleged that they also fired bullets with an intention to kill, hitting his thigh.
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no such incident as stated had occurred and there was scuffle between the parties and there is case and counter case for the said incident. It has further been submitted that the injuries sustained by the prosecution side are simple in nature, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure- 3 series. It has lastly been submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons and even the injuries were on the non-vital parts of the body.
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 petitioner 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) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chandauti P.S. Case No. 182 of 2025, 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.
3/4 as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.
(ii) The petitioner 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 petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond. (v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
4/4 allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. (Sourendra Pandey, J) manoj/- U T