Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Jitendra Kumar @ Chhotan YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court held that the injuries were simple and did not indicate an intention to cause death, thereby granting bail to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar, was arrested in connection with a land‑dispute‑related incident where he allegedly assaulted an informant with an iron rod and fired a weapon, leading to multiple injuries. He faced charges under IPC sections 341, 323, 325, 308, 504 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner argued that the assault was a single‑rod attack, the injuries were simple, and there was no intention to cause death, seeking bail on the basis of a clean antecedent. The prosecution presented the injury report indicating several visible injuries. The court, after examining the medical report and noting the lack of evidence of intent to cause death, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Issues considered

  • Whether the nature and extent of injuries justify denial of bail under the serious charges.
  • Whether the petitioner’s alleged actions demonstrate an intention to cause death, warranting pre‑trial detention.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • assault
  • IPC
  • Arms Act
  • intention to cause death
  • land dispute
  • pre‑trial detention

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85920 of 2023
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-220 Year-2023 Thana- Kurth District- Arwal
                 ======================================================
                 Jitendra Kumar @ Chhotan Yadav, Son of Ramchandra Yadav, R/o village-
                 Pondil, P.S. - Kurtha, Distt. - Arwal
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Uday Narayan Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   21-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Kurtha P.S. Case

                   No.220 of 2023 registered under Sections 341, 323, 325,

                   308, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section

                   27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. As per FIR, named co-accused persons including

                   petitioner assaulted the informant by using iron rod while he

                   was ploughing in his agricultural field. The allegation of firing

                   is also available. During the occurrence, the informant

                   received serious injuries and was carried to Kurtha Hospital

                   by his family members.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85920 of 2023(5) dt.21-01-2026
                                            2/3




                       4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for

          petitioner that present occurrence took place in the

          background of land dispute. It is submitted that the allegation

          qua physical assault is only of single rod assault, which makes

          the allegation prima facie doubtful in view of injury report, as

          the informant received total five visible injuries on his body.

          In this context, it is submitted that in fact the occurrence was

          free fight in nature, where both parties received injuries. It is

          also submitted that upon medical examination, all injuries as

          alleged to be received by informant Krit Yadav was found

          simple in nature, suggesting that the petitioner was not under

          intention to cause death of informant/injured. The petitioner

          claimed clean antecedent.

                       5. Learned APP while opposing bail, submitted

          injury report of informant along with a copy of the up-to-date

          case diary across the board, which was taken on record.

                       6. In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by

          taking note of nature of injuries, which upon medical

          examination found simple prima facie negating intention to

          cause death, as alleged, accordingly, the petitioner, above-
        Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85920 of 2023(5) dt.21-01-2026
                                                    3/3




                  named, in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court

                  below within a period of four weeks from today, is directed to

                  be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

                  (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                  each to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Arwal in

                  connection with Kurtha P.S. Case No.220 of 2023, subject to

                  the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code

                  of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 482(2)

                  of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short

                  ‘BNSS’).

                               7. Presence of I.O. is dispensed with.


                                                          (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
    Sanjeet/-

U   T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.