Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Udho Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar

Udho Yadav vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 12, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/974544

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Udho Yadav

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at patna criminal miscellaneous no.42958 of 2011 udho yadav late kewal yadav r/o,vill.-sawan bigha,p.s.- dharaundha,dist.-siwan versus the state of bihar ---------------------------------- 02. 12.01.2012 heard learned counsel for the parties. the petitioner is in custody in connection with daraunda p.s. case no. 35 of 2011 for offence punishable under sections 307, 324, 323, 504 and 379/34 of the indian penal code. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the altercation in question is a manifestation of a land dispute. it is further submitted that initially a case was instituted against the husband of the informant and some others, by the petitioner himself giving rise to daraunda p.s. case no. 30 of 2011 placed at annexure-2 in which the son of the present petitioner also sustained grievous injury. it is stated that the case in question has been instituted two days thereafter on 12.03.2011. the f.i.r. charges the petitioner of having assaulted the father-in-law of the informant madho yadav by means of a farsa causing injury on his head. learned counsel, with reference to the injury report placed at annexure-6, submits that the injury has been stated to have been caused by a hard blunt substance whereas the charge against the petitioner is of assaulting the father-in-law by a farsa. be that as it may, regard being had to the allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted the said madho yadav and the injury report supporting the charge inasmuch as two lacerated injuries have been found on the vital portion of the head of the said 2 madho yadav requiring a proper treatment in a hospital, this court is not convinced with the prayer made by the petitioner for the present. the prayer is rejected. the application is dismissed. (jyoti saran, j.) s.sb/-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.42958 of 2011 Udho Yadav Late Kewal Yadav R/O,Vill.-Sawan Bigha,P.S.- Dharaundha,Dist.-Siwan Versus The State of Bihar ---------------------------------- 02. 12.01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Daraunda P.S. Case No. 35 of 2011 for offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 504 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the altercation in question is a manifestation of a land dispute. It is further submitted that initially a case was instituted against the husband of the informant and some others, by the petitioner himself giving rise to Daraunda P.S. Case No. 30 of 2011 placed at Annexure-2 in which the son of the present petitioner also sustained grievous injury. It is stated that the case in question has been instituted two days thereafter on 12.03.2011. The F.I.R. charges the petitioner of having assaulted the father-in-law of the informant Madho Yadav by means of a farsa causing injury on his head. Learned counsel, with reference to the injury report placed at Annexure-6, submits that the injury has been stated to have been caused by a hard blunt substance whereas the charge against the petitioner is of assaulting the father-in-law by a farsa. Be that as it may, regard being had to the allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted the said Madho Yadav and the injury report supporting the charge inasmuch as two lacerated injuries have been found on the vital portion of the head of the said 2 Madho Yadav requiring a proper treatment in a hospital, this Court is not convinced with the prayer made by the petitioner for the present. The prayer is rejected. The application is dismissed. (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.Sb/-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial