Munilal Yadav @ Santosh Kumar @ Munilal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88934 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-825 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Munilal Yadav @ Santosh Kumar @ Munilal Son of Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar R/o Village - Fatehpur, Police Station - Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 825 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 21.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 3(5)of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the First Information Report, the informant alleged that when he was visiting Chhariyari chhat Ghat in his motorcycle, in the meantime, the petitioner along with other coaccused persons started pelting bricks and stones on him with intention to kill him and assaulted one Saurabh Kumar by means
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88934 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 2/3 of belt.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that FIR is in two parts. In first part there is general and omnibus allegation against the accused persons whereas in the second part there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted to one Saurabh Kumar. Although the said Saurabh Kumar received injury but his injury report suggest that injury inflicted upon him is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner has clean antecedent and injury inflicted upon the injured person is simple in nature, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M-I, Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 825 of 2025, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88934 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 3/3 conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the 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 bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T