Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30085 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-456 Year-2024 Thana- KAUWAKOL District- Nawada

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Yadav S/o Naresh Yadav Resident Of VillageKarmatand, Ps- Kawakole, District- Nawada

¶5

Satyendra Yadav @ Satyendra Kumar S/o Naresh Yadav Resident Of Village- Karmatand, Ps- Kawakole, District- Nawada

¶6

Naresh Yadav S/o Mahavir Yadav Resident Of Village- Karmatand, PsKawakole, District- Nawada

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 25-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Kawakole P.S. Case No. 456 of 2024 instituted for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 1173(3), 118(2), 109, 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶16

Prosecution case, in short, is that on 23.12.2024 at about 7.30 PM, all the FIR named accused persons assaulted informant and his father by means of iron rod, as a result of which, father of the informant died and three persons were left

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30085 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025 2/3

¶18

injured.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioners. Informant is not eye-witness to the occurrence. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

¶20

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. Learned APP further submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased due to which he died and therefore, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on bail.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also there being direct allegation against the petitioners, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is, hereby, rejected.

¶23

However, if the petitioners surrender before the

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30085 of 2025(3) dt.25-07-2025 3/3

¶25

learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and pray for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

¶26

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)

¶27

Alok Verma/-

¶28

U T

Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farhan @ Farhan Alam @ Faran Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar @ Nitesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bittu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mukesh Rai @ Rakesh Rai @ Mukesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Naresh Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State of Bihar