IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47814 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2026 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== 1. Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Gohiwar @ Raju Yadav Son of Late Janki Yadav @ Late Janki Gohiwar Resident of Birpur, P.S.- Birpur, District-Supaul 2. Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Son of Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Gohiwar @ Raju Yadav Resident of Birpur, P.S.- Birpur, District-Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 22-07-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 61/2026 lodged on 06/02/2026, for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 127(2), 115, 118(1), 109, 324(4), 75, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47814 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 2/3

against seven named accused persons including the present petitioners. The accused persons allegedly surrounded the wife of the informant and started abusing and assaulting her in the background of broken the Maize-bal. When the informant reached there, the accused persons also assaulted him. It is specifically alleged against the petitioners that they assaulted with farsa on the head of the informant, causing head injury. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that both the parties are co-villagers and land dispute between the parties and there is case and counter case between them also. He further submits that the allegation against petitioner no.1 is not specific rather it is omnibus and general. Though petitioner no.2 alleged to have assaulted with a farsa but the injury caused is simple in nature. 5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. He further submits that Petitioner No. 1 alleged to have assaulted with farsa and some of the person from the informant’s side have received grievous injury. 6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47814 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 3/3 the petitioners in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 61/2026, pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Birpur is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioners surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks from today, the Trial Court is directed to pass an order on their surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that the petitioners’ anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Manshi/Ashwini U T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47814 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2026 Thana- BIRPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== 1. Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Gohiwar @ Raju Yadav Son of Late Janki Yadav @ Late Janki Gohiwar Resident of Birpur, P.S.- Birpur, District-Supaul 2. Ajit Kumar Yadav @ Mantu Yadav @ Mantu Son of Rajendra Yadav @ Rajendra Gohiwar @ Raju Yadav Resident of Birpur, P.S.- Birpur, District-Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 22-07-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 61/2026 lodged on 06/02/2026, for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 127(2), 115, 118(1), 109, 324(4), 75, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47814 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 2/3

against seven named accused persons including the present petitioners. The accused persons allegedly surrounded the wife of the informant and started abusing and assaulting her in the background of broken the Maize-bal. When the informant reached there, the accused persons also assaulted him. It is specifically alleged against the petitioners that they assaulted with farsa on the head of the informant, causing head injury. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that both the parties are co-villagers and land dispute between the parties and there is case and counter case between them also. He further submits that the allegation against petitioner no.1 is not specific rather it is omnibus and general. Though petitioner no.2 alleged to have assaulted with a farsa but the injury caused is simple in nature. 5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. He further submits that Petitioner No. 1 alleged to have assaulted with farsa and some of the person from the informant’s side have received grievous injury. 6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47814 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 3/3 the petitioners in connection with Birpur P.S. Case No. 61/2026, pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Birpur is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioners surrender before the Trial Court within six weeks from today, the Trial Court is directed to pass an order on their surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being prejudiced by the fact that the petitioners’ anticipatory bail has been rejected by this Court. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Manshi/Ashwini U T