Tuntun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88429 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-426 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== Tuntun Yadav S/o Late Naresh Yadav @ Late Nuresh Yadav R/o Village - Ray Karariya, P.S - Paharpur, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner along with two others assaulted the son of the informant with knife indiscriminately.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of three accused persons, one Sonalal Yadav was apprehended with a country-made pistol which is apparent from the FIR and from perusal of the injury report annexed at Annexure-P/2, it is clear that the son of informant namely,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88429 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026 2/2 Himanshu Kumar has received two stabs wound on left side of upper back measuring 2" x 1 1⁄2" and Second on the right side of the upper back size 2" x 1" x 1" . The doctor has opined that both the injuries are grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in this case, there are altogether three accused persons, one of them was apprehended with country-made pistol and there is allegation against these two persons that they have assaulted with knife.

6. Learned APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months , if the trial is not concluded.

8. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Abhishek/- U T