IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11610 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1006 Year-2025 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ======================================================

1. Mukesh Yadav, aged about 40 years, Male, S/o Late Peyare Yadav R/o Village- Milki Mataur, PS- Tehta, District- Jehanabad, Bihar

2. Bablu Yadav, aged about 38 years, Male, S/o Late Peyare Yadav R/o Village- Milki Mataur, PS- Tehta, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Anita Kumari, APP For the informant : Mr. Gaurang Darshan Dixit, Advocate Mr. Arun Bharti, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 12-03-2026 Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Anita Kumari, learned APP for the State and Mr. Gaurang Darshan Dixit and Mr. Arun Bharti, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 1006/2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections126(2),115(2),117(2),118(1),109(1),351(2),352,351 (3) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused persons named therein including the petitioners have assaulted the informant by means of rod and lathi, causing injury to her.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is case and counter case between the parties and due to previous enmity, an altercation took place and both the sides sustained injury. The petitioners in their self-defence, may have caused some injury on the person of the informant without intention. The injury sustained on the person of the informant has been found to be simple in nature. Petitioners have clean antecedents. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-

arrest bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR and also the fact that there is case and counter case between the parties and due to some dispute, an altercation took place and both the sides entered into fierce fight and in the self-defence, petitioners may have caused some injury on the person of the informant without intention. I am of the opinion that petitioners, who are having clean antecedents, have, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail. 7. The petitioners, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-I, Jehanabad / Concerned Court in connection with Makhdumpur (Tehta) P.S. Case No. 1006/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners are involved in some other cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Sanjay/- U T