Patna High Court
Prakash Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ MunnaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations were specific, direct, and involved grievous injury.
Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the B.N.S. for allegedly assaulting an informant with an iron rod, causing grievous injuries. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was named in the FIR and that a medical report confirmed the seriousness of the injuries. The petitioner contended that the incident arose from a petty dispute between co‑villagers, that both parties sustained injuries, and that he has a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific and direct nature of the accusation and the seriousness of the injuries. After considering the facts, the court held that the seriousness of the allegations warranted denial of anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR and alleged assault.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115, 117, 118, 126, 190, 191, 303, 351, 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- grievous injury
- FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19935 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2026 Thana- KURTHA District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Prakash Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ Munna son of Arun Singh RESIDENT
OF VILLAGE -FULSETHAR, PS- KURTHA, DISTRICT- ARWAL
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 190,
191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109, 351(2), 352
and 303(2) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, this petitioner is alleged to
have assaulted on the head of informant with iron rod.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. As a matter of fact, both parties are co-
villagers and on account of petty dispute, altercation took place
between the parties in which both sides sustained injuries. There
is case and counter-case. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19935 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/2
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and there is specific accusation that this petitioner assaulted on
the head of informant with iron rod. Doctor has found the
injuries, caused by the petitioner, grievous in nature.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and nature of
injuries allegedly caused by this petitioner, the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…