Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Kumar Banti @ Amit Kumar @ BantiversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6605 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2025 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Amit Kumar Yadav @ Amit Kumar Banti @ Amit Kumar @ Banti S/o
                 Bhupendra Yadav R/o Village- Karnpoatti, Ward No. 13, P.S.- Triveniganj,
                 Distt.- Supaul

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                          ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   23-03-2026                      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public

                   Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since

                   23.11.2025 in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 294 of

                   2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),

                   352, 351(2), 109(1), 303(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of

                   Arms Act.

                               3. That the prosecution case, in brief, is that on

                   08.06.2025 this petitioner tried to hit her with his motorcycle

                   and abused her near her house. When her husband Arjun Yadav

                   reached there, petitioner also abused and threatened him before

                   leaving. Later, the petitioner returned with his father and ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6605 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
                                            2/4




          persons. On the exhortation of his father, the petitioner fired at

          Arjun Yadav on his chest, and his father also fired, injuring his

          arm. It is further alleged that the accused persons entered the

          house, looted Rs.2 lakhs, and fired several rounds at the place of

          occurrence.

                      4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has

          falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further

          submitted that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and

          fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as

          alleged in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

          submits that from bare perusal of the FIR it appears that due to

          petty dispute the present occurrence took place. It is further

          submitted that although there is specific allegation against the

          petitioner that he along with his father has fired upon the

          husband of the informant. It is also submitted that as per the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR, two persons have fired upon the

          husband of the informant but from bare perusal of the injury

          report of the injured person it suggests that he has received only

          one firearm injury. It is further submitted that as per the injury

          report, the injury caused to the injured person is simple in

          nature.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6605 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
                                            3/4




                      5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

          State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the

          petitioner.

                        6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          and the fact that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and

          as per the allegation as alleged in the FIR that two persons have

          fired upon the husband of the informant but only one injury is

          found on the body of the injured person, let the petitioner, above

          named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Supaul in

          connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 294 of 2025, subject

          to the following conditions:-

                        i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and

          on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.

                        ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to

          move for cancellation of bail.

                        iii. And further condition that the court below shall
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6605 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
                                                       4/4




                     verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at

                     any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

                     criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

                     cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

                     acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

                     shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of

                     verification.



                                            (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-

U      T