Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78799/2025rejected

Harendra Yadav @ Harendra Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-29Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78799 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== Harendra Yadav @ Harendra Prasad Yadav Son of Sri Surendra Yadav @ Surendra Yadav Resident of Village- Rambag, P.S.- Ranitalab District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 02.04.2025 in connection with Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 02.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1) and 352 of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner over a petty dispute abused and brutally assaulted the informant's father resulting into his death.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78799 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026 2/2 any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R itself that due to some previous dispute the present occurrence has taken place and there is no intention to kill anyone.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R it appears that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the same is supported by the medical evidences.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and the same is supported by the medical evidences, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Danapur, Patna.

7. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T