Patna High Court
Shankar Prajapati @ Shiv Shankar PrajapativersusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, on the facts, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Prajapati family, applied for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act, 2023 after a lower court rejected their earlier bail plea. The prosecution alleged that on 17 September 2025 the petitioners assaulted the informant’s wife, causing a fractured head, and that they were involved in a violent clash between two families, with FIRs filed by both sides. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated and that the injuries on both sides were simple. The court observed that the incident amounted to a ‘free fighting’ dispute with no material suggesting a danger to justice or a risk of the petitioners fleeing. Relying on the guidelines in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, the court found a prima facie case for anticipatory bail and ordered its grant subject to bond and surety conditions. The order also reserved the right to cancel bail if the petitioners concealed any criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 given the nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether there is any material to presume that granting bail would thwart the course of justice or enable the petitioners to flee.
- Whether the fact that the case involves a ‘free fighting’ between parties with simple injuries affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- false implication
- free fighting
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2014 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2025 Thana- NAVINAGAR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Shankar Prajapati @ Shiv Shankar Prajapati S/O Chandrika Prajapati
Resident of Village- Hazari Babhan sota, P.S.- Nabinagar, District-
Aurangabad
2. Laxman Prajapati S/O Chandrika Prajapati Resident of Village- Hazari
Babhan sota, P.S.- Nabinagar, District- Aurangabad
3. Dhananjay Prajapati S/O Laxman Prajapati Resident of Village- Hazari
Babhan sota, P.S.- Nabinagar, District- Aurangabad
4. Shravan Prajapati S/O Shankar Prajapati @ Shiv Shankar Prajapati Resident
of Village- Hazari Babhan sota, P.S.- Nabinagar, District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2.This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of
BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioners after rejection
of their anticipatory bail application by order dated 16.12.2025
passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, First-
cum- Special Judge (SC/ST, children, Sleeping Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act), Aurangabad seeking Anticipatory
Bail in connection with Nabinagar P.S. case no 287 of 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/5
registered under Section 115(2), 329(4), 126(2), 109(1), 352 and
3(5) of B.N.S., District Aurangabad.
3.In brief, the prosecution case is that on 17.09.2025 at
4:30 pm, the wife of informant Ashwani Prajapati was on her
terrace. At that time, the above-mentioned accused started
misbehaving with her. Then, other accused of this case,
Dhananjay Prajapati, Laxman Prajapati and Shankar Prajapati
entered into her house and started abusing and beating her.
Meanwhile, Dhananjay Prajapati, with the intention of killing
her, hit the informant's wife on the forehead with an iron rod,
due to which her head got fractured. While being taken for
treatment, Shravan Prajapati and the above-mentioned accused
surrounded and attacked the vehicle.
4.It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned
counsel for the petitioners submit that with regard to the
incident which took place on 17.09.2025, both sides lodged
F.I.R. against each other. The informant of this case namely
Ashwani Prajapati lodged FIR against the petitioners on
18.09.2025, which was registered as Aurangabad P.S. Case No.
287 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 329(4), 126(2), 109(1), 352
and 3(5) of B.N.S in which one person namely, Pratibha Devi
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/5
has received injury which is alleged to have been caused by the
petitioner no. 3. So far as counter case is concerned, from the
side of the petitioners, FIR has been lodged by Renu Devi on
19.09.2025 which was registered as Aurangabad P.S. Case No.
288 of 2025 under Section 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352,
3(5) of B.N.S, in which also one person namely, Keshav
Prajapati has received injury. It is also submitted that injury of
both sides are simple in nature. The petitioners are made
accused in four cases in which they are on bail. Averment in this
regard has been mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the application.
It is also submitted that pursuant to F.I.R. of this case, the
petitioners have apprehension of imminent arrest. Lastly, it is
submitted that in case the petitioners are granted anticipatory
bail, They would not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the
investigation/trial of this case.
5.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the
State opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioners in the light of the allegations made in the F.I.R. He
also submits that as on date there is no material on record to
presume the false implication of the petitioners. Considering the
prosecution case, cognizable offence is made out against the
petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/5
5.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find
that it is a case of free fighting between the parties concerned, in
which both sides received injury, which are simple in nature. As
on date there is no material on record to presume that there is
danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as noted
above, reasonable apprehension of arrest of the petitioners,
taking into consideration the gravity of offence, nature of
accusation and there being no possibility of his fleeing away
from justice, this Court is of the view that in the light of
guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1,
prima facie the petitioners have made out a case for grant of
anticipatory bail.
7.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest or
surrender of the petitioners above-named within two weeks
from today in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on
anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2014 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/5
in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to conditions laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023.
8.With the aforesaid observations and directions, this
anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9.In case, at any stage it is found that the petitioners have
disclosed their incomplete criminal history before this Court,
learned Court below shall be at the liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioners after hearing them and getting satisfied
that they have concealed their criminal antecedents despite their
knowledge of the same.
10.It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited
to the purpose of determination of this anticipatory bail
application and will not effect the merits of the case.
(Sanjay Kumar Singh , J)
Raj Ranjan/-
U T
Checking your session…