Rangila YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38061 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2026 Thana- KOTWA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Rangila Yadav S/o- Late Ramayodhya Yadav RO Village- Barharwa Kala
                 Pakshmi Tola Lacchumanwa PS- Kotwa District- East Champaran

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Amrit Lal, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Kotwa P.S. Case No. 70 of 2026, dated 16.02.2026, lodged

                   under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 303(2), 109(1),

                   352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

                   (hereinafter referred to as “BNS, 2023”), pending before the

                   Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class (JMFC), East

                   Champaran, Motihari.

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

                   15 named accused persons, including the present petitioner, with

                   the allegation that he assaulted the informant with a gadasa,

                   causing injury.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38061 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

          further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is

          clean and the present case has been lodged only with a view to

          creating pressure upon the petitioner and the other named accused

          persons, as the petitioner’s side had earlier filed a criminal case

          against the informant’s side. It is submitted that the informant’s

          side was exerting pressure for a compromise, and only for that

          reason has the present case been instituted. Counsel further

          submits that out of the 15 named accused persons, 13 accused

          persons have already been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore,

          this aspect may be taken into consideration.

                       5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,

          opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and

          submits that, upon perusal of the FIR, the specific allegation of

          assault is only against two accused persons, namely, Bhola Yadav

          and Rangila Yadav (the petitioner). Counsel further submits that

          the petitioner assaulted the informant with a gadasa, due to which

          an injury was sustained on the head.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          present case, particularly the specific allegation against the

          present petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory

          bail to the petitioner.
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38061 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                      3/3




                                 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                    petitioner is hereby rejected.



                                                                         (Dr. Anshuman, J.)

Aman Kumar/-

U     T