IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77139 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-475 Year-2024 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ======================================================

Binod Yadav S/o Vishan Yadav R/o Village - Nayadih, P.S - Rajaun, District -

Banka ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv.

Mr.Raju Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

5 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case no.475 of 2024 registered under section 109 of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act and subsequently Section 103(1) of BNS has been added.

3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that two unkown miscreants fired upon the informant’s father due to which he succumbed to his injuries.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR has been lodged against unknown and the name of the petitioner and another has transpired on the basis of an application given by the victim of the case who subsequently died and the said application has been recorded in paragraph no.

14 of the case diary. It has further been submitted that even according to such submission, the specific allegation of firing is on Subodh Yadav and the petitioner has been implicated on account of earlier dispute. Further, the petitioner was not arrested on the spot and no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The petitioner is in custody since

23.07.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State on the ground that in paragraph no. 14 of the case diary, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner that he restrained the victim, while co-accused Subodh Yadav, fired a shot near the victim’s ear, as a result of which the victim eventually succumbed to his injuries. In such circumstances, the statement of the victim would constitute a dying declaration.

6. Earlier, a report had been called for regarding the veracity of the application referred to in paragraph no. 14 of the case diary and upon verification, the contents thereof were found to be true.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the statement of the victim/deceased disclosed the fact that the petitioner had held the deceased while co-accused Subodh Yadav had fired upon him, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the application is rejected.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

Harsh/-

U T