Arvind Kumar Yadav @ Arjun Ray Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63781 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2025 Thana- SIWAIPATTI District- Muzaffarpur

¶3

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

¶4

Arvind Kumar Yadav @ Arjun Ray S/O Ramdhari Ray R/O VillageHarsher, P.S- Siwaipatti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

¶5

Indal Ray S/O Yogendra Ray R/O Village- Harsher, P.S- Siwaipatti, Distt.Muzaffarpur.

¶6

Golu Kumar @ Pawan Kumar S/O Indal Ray R/O Village- Harsher, P.SSiwaipatti, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

¶7

... ... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar Siwaipatti

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 15-09-2025

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶16

counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶17

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 71 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 74, 352, 351(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. Act.

¶18

As per prosecution case, eight co-accused persons including the petitioners armed with lathi, danda and farsa came at the house of informant and started abusing him. It is alleged that petitioner no. 3 assaulted the informant by means

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63781 of 2025(2) dt.15-09-2025 2/4

¶20

of farsa upon his head as a result of which informant sustained head injury. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 2 and others assaulted the informant by means of lathi as a result of which informant sustained severe injuries on his eyes and they also assaulted on the mouth of the informant as a result of which informant’s jaw fractured. It is further alleged that during the course of scuffle, petitioner no. 3 entered in the house of informant and took away Rs. 20,000/- (in cash) and gold jwellery ( mangtika ).

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though, there is specific allegation of assault against petitioner no. 3 but allegation against petitioner nos. 1 and 2 is general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt-act against the petitioner no. 1 and 2. He further submits that petitioners and informant are agnates. He further submits that there was previous monetary dispute between the informant and the petitioner no. 3 and, hence, he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that fardbeyan of the informant was taken on 13.04.2025 i.e. after a delay of almost eight days from the date of occurrence and no plausible explanation has been given regarding the said delay. Petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and they have

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63781 of 2025(2) dt.15-09-2025 3/4

¶23

falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners bear no criminal antecedent.

¶24

The learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners by submitting that petitioner no. 3 assaulted the informant by means of farsa on his head as a result of which informant sustained head injury. They further submit that informant has sustained fracture injury on his head and nasal bone and nature of both injuries are grievous, as mentioned in impugned order. Hence, petitioner no. 3 does not deserve anticipatory bail. However, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant submits that though, there is no specific allegation of assault against petitioner no. 1 and 2 but they are named in FIR. Hence, they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no specific allegation against petitioner nos. 1 and 2, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, petitioner no. 1 and 2 above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63781 of 2025(2) dt.15-09-2025 4/4

¶27

bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, East Muzaffarpur in connection with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 71 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.

¶28

So far as petitioner no. 3, namely, Golu Kumar is concerned, there is specific allegation against him that he assaulted the informant by means of farsa as a result of which he sustained head injury and the impugned order reflects that informant has sustained fracture injury on his head and nasal bone which are grievous in nature, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 3. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 3 is hereby rejected.

¶29

Accordingly, the application stands disposed off.

¶30

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶31

alok/-

¶32

U T

Arvind Kumar Yadav @ Arjun Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Yadav @ Arjun Ray v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar @ Rohit Kumar Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Raviranjan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mufassir Alam @ Mufasir Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Babu Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Munna Yadav @ Munna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State of Bihar