Patna High Court
Surendra Prasad Gupta @ Surendra Sao @ Surendra SawversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that, despite the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s clean antecedent and willingness to cooperate justified the grant of anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions.
Summary
Surendra Prasad Gupta was named in an FIR (Delha PS Case No.135 of 2025) for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118, 76, 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, arising from a dispute over water flowing onto his roof that led to mutual assaults. The petitioner, claiming a clean antecedent, argued that the allegations were false, the injuries were minor and that both parties had assaulted each other. He applied for anticipatory bail, assuring the court of his cooperation and that he would not abscond. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the seriousness of the charges. The Court, after considering the petitioner’s clean record, the nature of the dispute and his willingness to surrender, ordered that anticipatory bail be granted on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, and on surrender within six weeks, subject to the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS. The order thus releases the petitioner from arrest pending surrender, while imposing strict procedural safeguards.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code given the nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence, warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- false implication
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78349 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2025 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya
======================================================
Surendra Prasad Gupta @ Surendra Sao @ Surendra Saw Son of Sidheshvar
Sao @ Sidhan Saw Resident of Mohalla - Dhaniya Bagicha, P.S.- Delha,
District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118,
76, 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges
that water of his neighbour was flowing on his roof and on objection
petitioner assaulted him by rod causing fracture of his right hand
while Saloni assaulted the daughter-in-law of the informant by bricks
causing injury on her head and his three sons snatched his daughter-
in-law’s chain and acted inappropriately.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation
as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78349 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/2
that on account of dispute relating to falling of water on his roof the
occurence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that no
doubt, an altercation had taken place but then both sides assaulted
each other. It is also submitted that petitioner is not a criminal and the
blow is not alleged to have been repeated and on a trivial dispute the
occurence took place. It is further submitted that even allegation of
assualt is not on vital part of the body. It is next submtited that
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation
to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner let the petitioner, above-named, in the event
of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be
released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
pending/Successor Court in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 135
of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2)
of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.