Patna High Court
Tuntun YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court declined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Tuntun Yadav, sought regular bail in a case involving multiple serious offences under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that Yadav and two others assaulted the informant's son with a knife, causing grievous injuries, and that one co-accused was seized with a country-made pistol. The petitioner argued that only two of the three accused were involved in the knife assault and highlighted the nature of the injuries. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the gravity of the charges and the presence of a firearm. After considering the facts, the court refused to grant bail, allowing the petitioner to reapply after six months if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to an accused facing offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 of the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- regular bail
- serious offences
- assault with knife
- possession of illegal firearm
- grievous injury
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88429 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-426 Year-2025 Thana- PAHARPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
Tuntun Yadav S/o Late Naresh Yadav @ Late Nuresh Yadav R/o Village - Ray
Karariya, P.S - Paharpur, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Priyesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections
25(1-B)(a), 26 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner along with two others assaulted the son of the
informant with knife indiscriminately.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that out of three accused persons, one Sonalal Yadav was
apprehended with a country-made pistol which is apparent from
the FIR and from perusal of the injury report annexed at
Annexure-P/2, it is clear that the son of informant namely,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88429 of 2025(3) dt.26-02-2026
2/2
Himanshu Kumar has received two stabs wound on left side of
upper back measuring 2” x 1 ½” and Second on the right side of
the upper back size 2” x 1” x 1” . The doctor has opined that
both the injuries are grievous in nature. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that in this case, there are
altogether three accused persons, one of them was apprehended
with country-made pistol and there is allegation against these
two persons that they have assaulted with knife.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for
bail after six months , if the trial is not concluded.
8. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Abhishek/-
U T
Checking your session…