IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51643 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-18 Year-2026 Thana- GANGAUR District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1. Vibhishan Yadav @ Vibhishan Kumar S/O Ratan Yadav R/O-Village- Sunguthiya, P.S-Gangaur, District-Khagaria. 2. Raghunandan Yadav @ Raghunandan Kumar S/O Shivan Yadav R/O- Village- Sunguthiya, P.S-Gangaur, District- Khagaria. 3. Sanjeev Yadav @ Sanjeev Kumar S/O Sujan Yadav R/O-Village- Sunguthiya, P.S-Gangaur, District- Khagaria. 4. Praduman Yadav @ Praduman Kumar S/O Sakal Yadav R/O-Village- Sunguthiya, P.S-Gangaur, District- Khagaria. 5. Jai Prakash Yadav S/O Ramotar Yadav R/O-Village- Sunguthiya, P.S- Gangaur, District-Khagaria. 6. Jalandhar Yadav @ Jalandhar Kumar S/O Ratan Yadav R/O-Village- Sunguthiya, P.S-Gangaur, District-Khagaria. 7. Shivan Yadav S/O Ramotar Yadav R/O-Village- Sunguthiya, P.S-Gangaur, District-Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 13-08-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 329(4), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 74, 109, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have antecedent of two cases, but then the said two Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51643 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 2/3 cases have been instituted from the side of the informant. It is next submitted that informant alleges that she along with her family members were in the house on 05.04.2026 when eleven named accused persons including the petitioners came in between 6-7 PM and started abusing, on objection, Shivan dashed her on the ground and pulled her saree, further on orders of Shivan, accused Dilkhush fired causing firearm injury to her husband on her leg, thereafter Kundan and Krishnanandan assaulted her husband by dabia all over his body while Raghunandan assaulted her son (Gulshan) by axe repeatedly causing injury on head, further Vibhishan and Rajeev fired at Lalan, Dharmveer and Suman but missed, thereafter Raghunandan, Sanjeev Praduman and Jai Prakash assaulted Lalan, Dharmveer and Suman by rod, lathi and butt of gun till they became unconscious, accordingly, the injured were admitted in hospital and her husband was referred to Bhagalpur. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant being agnates. It is also submitted that there is a land dispute in between the parties. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific allegation of firing is against Dilkhush, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51643 of 2026(2) dt.13-08-2026 3/3 but then all agnates have been implicated. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and submits that Dilkhush is son of Shivan who is petitioner no. 7 and is brother of Raghunandan who is petitioner no. 2. It is also submitted that no doubt specific allegation of firing is against Dilkhush, but then the other accused persons who were present at the place of occurrence are also alleged to have assaulted other family members of the informant including her son. It is next submitted that since eleven persons came at the house of the informant, as such, Dilkhush got emboldened by their presence and committed the occurrence of firing. It is also submitted that investigation in the case is continuing. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected. Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T