Shivlal YadavversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4793 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2025 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Shivlal Yadav Son of Late Suraj Yadav Resident of Vill. - Miskar Tola, Ward
                 No-14, P.S.- Chanpatiya, Dist.- West Champaran.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sanjeev Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey- A.P.P.
                                                 Mr.Krishna Kant Pandey
                                                 Ms.Purnima Kumari
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-03-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

                   the informant.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his

                   arrest in Chanpatiya P. S. Case No.169 of 2025 registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 117(2),

                   109(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

                                3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and in sum and

                   substance, the allegation is that petitioner assaulted Rajeshwar

                   Yadav by garasa causing injury on head.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner and the informant are agnates and are having dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4793 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
                                            2/3




          relating to land. It is next submitted that initially when the injury

          report was submitted, the same opined the injury to be simple in

          nature, though was on vital part of the body, but then, from

          perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same

          records that the injury report was objected by the side of the

          informant, as such, the Court called for an opinion on the injury

          received by Rajeshwar Yadav and the opinion which was

          furnished to the Court by the Pharmacists of the P.H.C. recorded

          that earlier injury report was issued without consulting the

          senior doctors but after the senior doctors were consulted, it was

          found that the injured suffered fracture frontal bone on left side

          of the head and the same was opined to be grievous in nature

          which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel

          appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory

          bail application and submits that the second injury report was

          furnished based on the orders of the Court and the injury report

          clearly recorded that the injury suffered by the injured was

          opined to be grievous after consulting the senior doctors of the

          P.M.C.H. It is also submitted that head is a vital part of the body

          and the investigation is continuing.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4793 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                         informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of

                         anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                      7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail

                         stands rejected.



                                                   (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T