Patna High Court
Naresh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The High Court granted bail to the petitioners, holding that the nature of the injuries and the discretion under the B.N.S., 2023 do not preclude bail.
Summary
The petitioners, four members of the Yadav family, were charged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 for allegedly arriving armed and assaulting an informant. The prosecution alleged that Naresh Yadav ordered the killing and that Amlesh Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav inflicted injuries, while Pairu Kumar was merely armed. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, that most injuries were simple in nature and only one grievous wound (to the wrist) existed, which is bailable. The trial court had rejected their bail application, but the High Court, after hearing counsel, noted that the nature of the injuries did not justify denial of bail and that the trial court must exercise its discretion judiciously. Consequently, the High Court ordered that all petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each. The order underscores the principle that the seriousness of the injury, not merely the sections alleged, determines bail eligibility.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite being charged with offences under the B.N.S., 2023 involving alleged armed assault and grievous injury
- Whether the presence of a single grievous injury makes the offence non‑bailable
- Whether the trial court exercised its jurisdiction correctly in denying bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- grievous injury
- non‑bailable offence
- jurisdiction
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- armed assault
- injury report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91375 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- LACHHUAR District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Naresh Yadav S/O Late Garib Yadav Resident of village- Khutkat, P.S.-
Lachhuar, District- Jamui.
2. Kamlesh Yadav @ Kamlesh Kumar S/O Naresh Yadav Resident of village-
Khutkat, P.S.- Lachhuar, District- Jamui.
3. Piaru Kumar @ Peru Yadav S/O Suresh Yadav Resident of village- Khutkat,
P.S.- Lachhuar, District- Jamui.
4. Amlesh Yadav @ Amlesh Kumar S/O Naresh Yadav Resident of village-
Khutkat, P.S.- Lachhuar, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikramadit, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prem
Kumar Jha, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for bail in connection
with Lachhuar P.S. Case No. 134 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2),
109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner
along with others, arrived armed with lathi-danda, Khanti and iron
rods. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 1 namely, Naresh
Yadav, ordered to kill. Pursuant thereto, Amlesh Yadav (petitioner
no. 4) assaulted the informant on the leg with an iron pipe, and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91375 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/5
petitioner no. 2, namely, Kamlesh Yadav, assaulted the informant
on his hand, as a result of which his hand was fractured. As far as
petitioner no. 3 namely, Pairu Kumar @ Peru Yadav is concerned,
there is an allegation that he was armed with lathi but did not
assault anyone.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this
case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from a
perusal of the order of the learned trial court, it is clear that the
learned trial court has recorded that the injuries mentioned in the
injury report of Suman Yadav in Case diary para-61 as follows:
(i) L/W on frontal region size-3”x1/2”x1/2”;
(ii) L/W at right parietal region size 2”x1/4”x1/4”;
(iii) Pain and swelling at right elbow;
(iv) Bleeding from nose;
(v) Pain and swelling at left leg;
(vi) Bruise on the back; and
(vii) Whole body pain.
All the aforesaid injuries have been opined to be simple
in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that
the injury report of Naresh Prasad discloses the following injuries:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91375 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/5
(i) Lacerated wound on the right wrist size
1.5”x1/4”x1/4”,
(ii) A cut wound at left face 1.5”x1.4”x1/4”
(iii) Pain and swelling right at wrist,
(iv) Pain and selling on left parietal region,
(v) Bruise on left shoulder,
(vi) Whole body pain.
It has been opined that injury no. 1 is grievous in
nature, while the remaining injuries are simple.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear that there are specific
allegations against the petitioners. There are four petitioners in the
present case, and there is no allegation against petitioner no. 3
namely, Pairu Kumar @ Peru Yadav. Petitioner no. 1, namely,
Naresh Yadav is alleged to be only an order giver, whereas
petitioner no. 2, namely, Kamlesh Yadav is alleged to have
assaulted Naresh Yadav, the father-in-law of the informant who
has received injury at right wrist and that wound is opined to be
grievous in nature.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far
as Amlesh Yadav is concerned, it is alleged that he assaulted the
informant with a pipe on the leg. From a perusal of the order of the
learned trial court, it is clear that save and except injury no. 1 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91375 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/5
Naresh Yadav, all other injuries are simple in nature, and even
injury no. 1, though grievous, is bailable in nature. He further
submits that a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition
that petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Petitioner nos. 1 to
3 namely, Naresh Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav and Pairu Kumar
respectively are languishing in judicial custody since 29.10.2025
and petitioner no. 4 namely, Amlesh Yadav is in judicial custody
since 31.10.2025.
8. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by the
learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
9. Before parting, it is very disheartening to note that
officers in the cadre of ADJ are not able to appreciate the nature
of the injuries and they are moved by the sections which are
leveled by police. It is not the police who has to decide the
sections under which a case will fall. It is the Judicial Officer
who has to decide the same after application of mind. In this
case, there is only one grievous injury, i.e., on the wrist. Despite
the fact that the learned trial court has rejected the bail
application, he should introspect about his jurisdiction and the
discretion which is provided to him.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91375 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/5
petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Lachhuar P.S.
Case No. 134 of 2025 corresponding to Sl. No. 4240 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…