Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 66264 (PAT)

Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Yadav v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./53799/2025 · 2025-08-18

Prabhat Kumar Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53799 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== 1. Satyendra Kumar @ Satyendra Yadav S/O Adhin Yadav @ Ramadhin Yadav R/O Village- Goddhoba, P.S- Muffasil, Distt.- Nawada. 2. Ranju Devi W/O Satyendra Yadav R/O Village- Goddhoba, P.S- Muffasil, Distt.- Nawada. 3. Vikash Kumar S/O Satyendra Yadav R/O Village- Goddhoba, P.S- Muffasil, Distt.- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Suman Kumari Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 18-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 96 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. As per prosecution case, co-accused Sonu Kumar kidnapped sister of the informant for the purpose of marriage and when informant went to the house of co-accused Sonu Kumar to complain, these petitioners, who are parents and brother of co-accused Sonu Kumar, assaulted informant with lathi and danda. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53799 of 2025(2) dt.18-08-2025 2/2 petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case merely because they are family members of co-accused Sonu Kumar. Specific accusation of kidnapping is against co- accused Sonu Kumar and these petitioners are only alleged to have assaulted and threatened informant when he went to make complaint about the alleged incident. Petitioners claim clean antecedent. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1, Nawada in connection with Muffasil P. S. Case No. 19 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Navya/- (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) U T