Patna High Court
Sinod KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that the incident was a free fight with injury to a non‑vital part of the body, prima facie negating the intention to cause death, and therefore granted anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Sinod Kumar, was named in an FIR for assaulting an informant during a neighbourhood dispute, with charges under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, including Section 109 which deals with attempts to cause death. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the incident was a mutual fight, the injuries were to non‑vital parts of the body, and there was no intention to cause death, citing his clean antecedent and a Supreme Court precedent. The State opposed the bail. The Court examined whether the facts satisfied the elements of Section 109 and concluded that, prima facie, the assault did not demonstrate an intention to cause death. Accordingly, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts of the case constitute an offence under Section 109 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, i.e., an attempt to cause death
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in view of the alleged offences
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 110, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352, 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 109
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- free fight
- clean antecedent
- criminal law
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10738 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-416 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Sinod Kumar S/o Jai Ram Yadav Resident of Village- Ramganj, P.S.- Ghosi,
District- Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sameer Darshan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad,APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Ghosi P.S. Case
No. 416 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 110, 74, 352 & 3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
3. As per FIR, petitioner alongwith other co-accused
persons assaulted the informant and others during the
occurrence, where informant alleged to receive injury on her
hand and head, which alleged to be caused by this petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the occurrence, in fact, was free
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10738 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
2/3
fight in nature where both parties received injury. It is
submitted that occurrence took place due to neighbourhood
dispute and differences. It is pointed out that injury, as
alleged to be caused by this petitioner, found upon non-vital
part of the body which was not likely to cause death and,
therefore, prima facie case under section 109 of the B.N.S.
not appears to be made out. It is submitted that nature of
injury is not the only criteria to make out a case under section
109 of the B.N.S., rather there are several other factors
which required to be taken into consideration like nature of
weapon, nature of occurrence, the body where assault was
made, manner of assault, pre and post conduct of the accused
persons etc. In support of her submission, learned counsel
relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Jage Ram and Others Vs. State of
Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366. Petitioner
claimed clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10738 of 2026(2) dt.24-02-2026
3/3
taking note of the fact as occurrence prima facie appears free
fight in nature, where assault, as alleged to be caused by this
petitioner, found upon non-vital part of the body, prima facie
negating the intention to cause death and as such to import
the allegation within the ambit of section 109 of the B.N.S.,
accordingly, petitioner above-named, who is a man of clean
antecedent, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a
period of four weeks from this order, is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jehanabad/concerned court in connection with Ghosi P.S.
Case No. 416 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…