Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88758 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2025 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.
Manoj Yadav Son of Late Ayodhi Yadav Resident of village - Ratan, P.S.- Gogari, District- Khagaria 2.
Anuj Yadav Son of Late Ayodhi Yadav Resident of village - Ratan, P.S.- Gogari, District- Khagaria 3.
Santosh Yadav Son of late Chamak Lal Yadav Resident of village- Ratan, P.S.- Gogari, District- Khagaria 4.
Tuntun Yadav Son of late Kamod Yadav Resident of village- Ratan, P.S.- Gogari, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 190 / 2025, G.R. No. 2208 / 2025 dated 01.08.2025 registered under Sections 191(2), 126 (2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 74, 352 of the B.N.S. 2023.
3. As per the F.I.R. on 31.07.2025 in the night the petitioners along with other accused persons entered into the house of the informant and started abusing. The petitioner no. 2 -Anuj Yadav resorted to firing and they started demanding 'rangdari' from the informant. It has further been alleged that co-accused Lalu
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88758 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 2/3 Yadav, petitioner no. 4 - Tuntun Yadav and petitioner no. 2 - Anuj Yadav started assaulting the informant by means of iron rod, lathi, danda etc. The co-accused / Sumit Yadav snatched golden ear ring. The petitioner no. 3 - Santosh Yadav took away Rs. 60,000/- kept in the box and when the son of the informant's sister Bhonu Kumar intervened the petitioner no. 2 assaulted him with iron rod causing severe head injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to village rivalry and previous enmity. The injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature as would be evident from the impugned order. The injury of Bhonu Kumar as discussed in the impugned order has been recorded by a private hospital.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that from perusal of the impugned order it appears that Bhonu Kumar has sustained grievous injury having fracture of the frontal bone in the mid line location.
6. Considering the nature of allegation and the fact that Bhonu Kumar has sustained serious injury on the head, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 2 -Anuj Yadav. The same is rejected.
7. Insofar the other petitioners are concerned, the allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88758 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026 3/3 against them is general and omnibus in nature and the informant has sustained simple injury, accordingly, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 1, 3 & 4.
8. Let the petitioner nos. 1, 3 & 4, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with Gogari P.S. Case No. 190 / 2025, G.R. No. 2208 / 2025 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T