IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.133 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2025 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Kumar Yadav Son of Baijnath Yadav Resident of Village - Maniyara, Police Station - Kuchaikote, District - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 20-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 247 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 21.08.2025 and the informant alleges that on 14-06-2025, the accused persons including the petitioner came and started putting hut and naad over his land, on objection by his cousin Chandan, accused Surendra and Baijnath gave orders to kill, thereafter petitioner assaulted him by farsa causing injury on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.133 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 2/3 face and repeated the blow, but farsa hit the ground, thereafter Bijesh assaulted the informant by knife causing injury on head and the accused persons assaulted both the brothers and Rambha Devi snatched his chain worth Rs. 80,000/- while Mukesh snatched chain of Chandan worth Rs. 95,000/- and the injured were taken to hospital and Chandan was referred to higher a center. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that the side of the petitioner and informant are related and are having dispute relating to land. It is next submitted that an altercation took place on the issue of putting hut and naad over the land, as the informant claimed that the land belongs to him when petitioner’s side are claiming the land as their. It is next submitted that no doubt the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the informant by farsha causing injury on face but then petitioner is not a criminal. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner assaulted the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.133 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026 3/3 informant by farsha causing injury on face and thereafter repeated the blow though the repeated blow did not hit the informant but then the earlier blow was so severe that he suffered grievous injury on nose, which is a vital part of the body. It is next submitted that no doubt the occurrence took place on account of dispute relating to land but then the manner in which the petitioner assaulted the informant on his vital part of the body causing grievous injury does not entitle the petitioner to be released on bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 7. The regular bail application of the petitioner is rejected. 8. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T