Mukesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36047 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-524 Year-2024 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur
                 ======================================================
                 Mukesh Yadav S/o Late Shaligram Yadav Resident of Village- Tilakpur, P.S.-
                 Sultanganj, District - Bhagalpur

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Amar Anand, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-06-2026                     The Court proceeding is being conducted through

                   virtual mode.

                                2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                3. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 524 of 2024 dated 04/01/2024

                   lodged under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS, 2023”) and

                   under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending before the Court of

                   A.D.J. VIII, Bhagalpur.

                                4. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   six named and three unknown accused persons, including the

                   present petitioner, against whom there is a specific allegation

                   that the petitioner is the order giver to assault, due to which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36047 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
                                            2/3




          firing has been made on the chest, and there is also an allegation

          of subsequent firing in the FIR.

                       5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

          that in the postmortem report, only one injury has been found,

          whereas in the FIR, there is an allegation of three injuries.

          Counsel submits that there was a land dispute going on between

          the petitioner and the informant. Counsel further submits that

          the name of the petitioner and other co-accused has been

          implicated due to the ongoing land dispute between the parties.

          Counsel submits that nothing has been recovered from the place

          of occurrence, i.e., empty cartridges or any relevant articles to

          co-relate the petitioner to the incident. Counsel further submits

          that the deceased was killed by a single gunshot injury fired

          from a close range, and on the wound, blackening, charring, and

          tattooing marks have been found. The allegation of firing is

          against Anil Singh and not against the petitioner. Rather, the

          petitioner is alleged to have ordered Fatak Yadav @ Mukesh

          Yadav to kill the informant’s brother. Counsel further submits

          that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean, as two

          criminal cases are pending against him, however, in both cases,

          he is on bail. Counsel submits further that the petitioner is ready
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36047 of 2026(2) dt.01-06-2026
                                                      3/3




                    to fulfil all the conditions whatsoever may be imposed upon

                    him.

                                 6. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the

                    prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the bail

                    application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail. Counsel

                    further submits that from the contents of the FIR, it becomes

                    crystal clear that the petitioner is the order giver. He further

                    submits that in the rejection order of the learned Additional

                    Sessions Judge-II, Bhagalpur, passed upon perusal of the case

                    diary, it becomes crystal clear that more than one injury was

                    found on the body.

                                 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                    present case, particularly that the petitioner is the order giver

                    and also that his antecedents are not clean, this Court is not

                    inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

                    the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby

                    rejected.



                                                                         (Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Aman Kumar/-

U     T