IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74561 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2024 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ======================================================

Photo Yadav @ Bipul Kumar S/o Rambilash Yadav R/o Village- Saidpur, P.S.-

Mansi, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Budhilal Yadav, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

3 13-02-2026 Heard learned 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 Mansi P.S. Case no.296 of 2024 registered under sections 115(2), 109, 126(2), 303(2) and 352 of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that petitioner and co-

accused Dablu Yadav assaulted the informant and also resorted to firing which hit his stomach and right hand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the allegations made in the F.I.R., the specific allegation of firing upon the informant, which hit his stomach, is attributed to co-accused Dablu Yadav. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that he shot one Subin Kumar on his right hand. However, as a matter of fact, there is no injury report on record and it is submitted that no injury was sustained by the said person. This fact is also apparent from the bail rejection order passed by the learned court concerned. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place on account of some dispute between a co-villager and co-accused Dablu Yadav, against whom there is a specific allegation of firing which hit the stomach of the informant. The petitioner is in custody since

07.06.2025 and undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial.

5. A report with regard to stage of the case suggests that charges have been framed on 28.08.2025, which is evident from Annexure-2 to the petition.

6. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State on the ground that petitioner has several criminal antecedents. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is on bail in the said cases.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that no injury has been attributed to the petitioner that the allegation of firing is not substantiated by any injury report and charges have been framed in the case and he has remained in custody since 07.06.2025, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case no.296 of 2024 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 Court concerned where the case is pending/successor Court, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall remain physically present in the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

Harsh/-

U T