IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40468 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui ====================================================== Angrej Yadav S/O Late Mahabir Yadav R/O Vill.- Baghanmara, P.S.- Chakai, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 5 08-10-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Chakai P.S. Case no.21 of 2025, registered under sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 118(1), 109, 324(4), 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons including the petitioner herein are said to have come variously armed and the petitioner is said to have given farsa blow on the head of the informant causing grievous injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The reason for the dispute is the informant having outraged the modesty of the wife of the co-accused Anil Yadav which led to her filing Complaint Case no.173C/2025 (Annexure-P/3). The allegations Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40468 of 2025(5) dt.08-10-2025 2/2 levelled are false and concocted. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial. 5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State, who submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having given a farsa blow on the head of the informant together with corresponding grievous injury having been found. It is further submitted that so far as the case by the wife of Anil Yadav is concerned, the same was filed much after the instant F.I.R. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted with a farsa on the head of the informant together with the corresponding grievous injury having been found on the body of the injured, in the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected. 7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned Court below within a period of four weeks. Shiv/- (Partha Sarthy, J) U T