Patna High Court
Hare Ram YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to petitioners 1 and 2 but denied to petitioners 3 and 4.
Summary
The petitioners – four residents of Bhikhari Ghat – applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a land‑dispute case (PS‑507/2025) in which they were alleged to have committed offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR alleges that one petitioner fired a weapon, others assaulted the informant’s relatives with iron rods, and caused grievous injuries including a brain haemorrhage. The petitioners contend that the injuries were either simple or occurred on non‑vital parts of the body, arguing that the medical reports contradict the FIR and that they have been falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the injuries, especially a 4 mm mid‑line shift in the victim’s brain, and argued that the offences are non‑bailable. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 2 subject to bond and surety conditions, but refused bail to petitioners 3 and 4. The order reflects a partial grant of anticipatory bail based on the differing evidentiary assessments for each accused.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 in view of the alleged offences and the nature of injuries reported.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- land dispute
- assault
- firearm injury
- grievous hurt
- Bihar criminal law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21156 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-507 Year-2025 Thana- ALOULI District- Khagaria
======================================================
1. Hare Ram Yadav Son of Late Domi Yadav Resident of Village- Bhikhari
Ghat, P.S.- Alaouli, District- Khagaria
2. Pradip Yadav Son of Late Domi Yadav Resident of Village- Bhikhari Ghat,
P.S.- Alaouli, District- Khagaria
3. Vikas Kumar Son of Sushil Yadav Resident of Village- Bhikhari Ghat, P.S.-
Alaouli, District- Khagaria
4. Dilkhush Kumar Son of Rajdip Yadav Resident of Village- Bhikhari Ghat,
P.S.- Alaouli, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renuka Ratnakar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 08-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Alouli P.S. Case No.507 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2),
351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no.1, 2, 3 have antecedent of one case and petitioner
no.4 is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges
that the land in dispute measuring 18 katha is registered in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21156 of 2026(4) dt.08-07-2026
2/4
name of her parental father-in-law, Badri Gope, further she
along with her brother-in-law Girish were preparing paddy,
when 8 accused persons including the petitioners came and
Hareram fired causing firearm injury to Girish on his left leg,
thereafter Pradeep assaulted him by an iron rod causing injury
on head, further Sushil and Dilkhush assaulted Pintu by an iron
rod causing injury and doctor disclosed that Pintu suffered brain
haemorrhage, while Vikash and Nitish assaulted causing
fracture of both hands of the informant and Dilkhush along with
Sushil snatched ear-ring of her sister-in-law and accused
assaulted her sister-in-law also.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated
in the instant case by the informant on account of dispute
relating to land. It is next submitted that no doubt it is alleged
that Harearm fired causing firearm injury to Girish but then
from perusal of the injury report, it would manifest that the
injury suffered by Girish has been opined to be simple in nature
caused by hard and blunt substance hence allegation of firing
stands belied. It is further submitted that Sushil and Dilkhush
are alleged to have assaulted Pintu by iron rod causing injury
but then the FIR does not disclose that on which part of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21156 of 2026(4) dt.08-07-2026
3/4
body Pintu suffered injury and Vikash along with Nitish are
alleged to have assaulted the informant causing injury on hand
and the injury has been opined to be grievous in nature but then
from perusal of the injury report of the informant, it would
manifest that the same records lacerated wound on right wrist,
swelling, abrasion on left hand and pain on left thigh, as such
the injury though opined to be grievous but then was on non-
vital part of the body.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that
Sushil and Dilkhush are alleged to have assaulted Pintu by an
iron rod causing injury and from perusal of the injury report of
Pintu, it would manifest that the opinion has been reserved and
the doctor has recorded that there was a midline shift of 4 mm
towards right side of the fronto-parieto-occipital region, which
amply demonstrates that the assault was brutal. It is further
submitted that Vikash is alleged to have assaulted informant
who is a woman causing grievous injury along with Nitish but
then submits that Nitish and Sushil are not petitioners in the
instant case but then fairly submits that though Harearm is
alleged to have fired but then no firearm injury was found and
the injury suffered on account of assault by Pradeep is opined to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21156 of 2026(4) dt.08-07-2026
4/4
be simple in nature.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
petitioner no.1 and 2, above-named, in the event of their arrest
or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Alouli P.S. Case No.507 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner no.3 and 4.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of
petitioner no.3 and 4 are hereby rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.