Shankar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.533 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2025 Thana- Charkapathar District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Shankar Yadav Son of Parmeshwar Yadav R/o Village - Domasir(Ganda), P.S. - Charkapathar, Dist. - Jamui.
2.
Anil Yadav Son of Kesho Yadav R/o Village - Domasir(Ganda), P.S. - Charkapathar, Dist. - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Zainul Abedin, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Charkapathar P.S. Case No. 100 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2),115(2),117(2),109(1),3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioners, along with co-accused persons, allegedly assaulted the informant's father-in-law with deadly weapons, including an
2/4 axe and rod, with an intention to kill him, causing multiple grievous injuries.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners and the informant are covillagers and the petitioners have been implicated in the present case due to village politics. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner no. 2. There is only one injury found to be grievous in nature, which may have been caused by the petitioner on the person of the informant in his self-defence, without intention. The specific allegation is against the petitioner no.1 that he is the one who with in intention to kill had assaulted the father-in-law of the informant. On these grounds the petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having considered the allegations made in the FIR and the materials available on record, this Court finds that the parties are co-villagers and the occurrence appears to have arisen out of village dispute. The allegations against
3/4 petitioner no. 2 are general and omnibus in nature and only one injury is stated to be grievous in nature, the petitioner no.2, in his self defence, may have caused some injuries on the person of the informant, without intention. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner no. 2 has made out a case to be released on anticipatory bail
7. The learned District Court is directed to release the petitioner no. 2 on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned District Court where the case is pending in connection with Charkapathar P.S. Case No. 100 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
9. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, the learned District Court is directed to call for the final opinion of the doctor in respect of the injury report of the injured persons and if it is found that the same is simple in nature, then in that case, the learned District Court may proceed to pass a reasoned in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands
4/4 disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Ashishsingh/- U T