IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34148 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2025 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1. Mahavir Yadav S/O Ghuran Yadav R/O Village- Pilakhawar, PS- Rajnagar, Distt.- Madhubani 2. Ganesh Yadav @ Ganesh Kumar Yadav S/O Mahavir Yadav R/O Village- Pilakhawar, PS- Rajnagar, Distt.- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 4 06-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 74, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. 3. The allegation in the FIR is that on account of a dispute with regard to flying of kite, a free-fight had taken place between the parties who were neighbours. There is an allegation that while petitioner no.1 had exhorted, petitioner no.2 gave a farsa blow on the head of the son of the informant causing injury. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34148 of 2025(4) dt.06-08-2025 2/3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it would be apparent from the FIR itself that the dispute had taken place of account of flying of kites and in such dispute, assault has taken place and hence, no ingredient of Section 109(1) of the BNS would be made out in the facts of the case. It is further submitted that the present case is a counterblast of Pandaul P.S. Case No. 132 of 2024 filed against the informant and others. It is next submitted that the petitioners and informant’s husband are own gotiyas and the injury report of the injured person would go to show that although he has suffered two injuries attributable to the petitioners, they are both simple in nature. 5. Learned APP for the State, however, vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned lower Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Rajnagar Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34148 of 2025(4) dt.06-08-2025 3/3 P.S. Case No. 49 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023. divyanshi/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T