Patna High Court
Rajan @ Md. Sajjid Ali @ Md. Rajan @ Md. Rajan Sajid AliversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner no.1 but denied to petitioner no.2.
Summary
The petitioners, Rajan and Sajjan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with PS Jamui Case No. 550 of 2025, wherein they were accused under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for assaulting an informant. The FIR alleged that the accused, armed with lathis, iron rods and swords, attacked the informant, with specific allegation against petitioner no.2 for assaulting Md. Imtiyaz. The petitioners argued innocence and clean antecedents, while the informant and the State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the injuries. The Court observed that no specific allegation existed against petitioner no.1 and therefore granted him anticipatory bail subject to conditions, but found a specific allegation against petitioner no.2 and denied his anticipatory bail, directing him to surrender within six weeks for a trial‑court bail hearing. The order also reiterated that the anticipatory bail previously granted to another accused, Md. Mahtab, could not be compared with petitioner no.2's case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner no.1 in the absence of a specific allegation.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner no.2 despite a specific allegation of assault in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 2(1)(d), 3(5), 351(2)(3), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- FIR
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21761 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-550 Year-2025 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Rajan @ Md. Sajjid Ali @ Md. Rajan @ Md. Rajan Sajid Ali Md. Mahtab
R/o Village - Nimarang, Ward no. 27, P.S. and Dist. - Jamui.
2. Sajjan @ Md. Ali Raza @ Md. Sajan @ Sajan Aliraja Son of Md. Mahtab
R/o Village - Nimarang, Ward no. 27, P.S. and Dist. - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 550 of 2025 lodged on
25.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 352, 351(2)(3) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
seven named accused persons including the present petitioners
and 5 unknown persons. It has been alleged in the FIR that
when the informant went to visit his new house, then all the
accused persons and 5 unknown persons armed with lathi, iron
rod and sword surrounded him and then abused and assaulted
him. Accused Md. Mahtab assaulted the informant by sword on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21761 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
his head due to which injury has been caused, and the other
accused persons also assaulted the informant. The allegation
against petitioner no.2 is that on the order of Md. Mustaq, he
has assaulted Md. Imtiyaz on his right shoulder due to which
injury has been caused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel submits that for the same date and place of occurrence,
there are case and counter case from both the sides. Counsel
submits that as per the counter case, it transpires that both
parties have received injuries. He submits that there is no
allegation against petitioner no.1, but, against petitioner no.2,
there is allegation of assault. Counsel submits that from the
impugned order, it is apparent that the allegation and the injury
are mismatched. He further submits that the accused Md.
Mahtab has been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.19928/2026. He further
submits that the petitioners have clean antecedent and they are
ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed
upon them. Therefore, bail may be granted to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21761 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
allegation against petitioner no.2 of assault to Md. Imtiyaz and
injury of Md. Imtiyaz has already been discussed in the
impugned order and two of such injuries are grievous in nature.
Counsel further submits that the anticipatory bail application of
the petitioners be rejected, as they all assaulted the informant’s
side.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners and submits that against petitioner no.1,
there is no specific allegation, but against petitioner no.2, there
is specific allegation in the FIR. He submits that it is also true
that there is allegation against accused Md. Mahtab, but as
intimated by counsel for the petitioners, he has been granted
anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
7. After hearing the parties, it transpires to this Court
that there is no specific allegation against petitioner no.1,
therefore, let the above named petitioner no.1 be released on
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the
satisfaction of C.J.M., Jamui, in connection with Jamui P.S.
Case No. 550 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21761 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
U/s 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
8. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, this Court is
not inclined to grant bail to him, as there is specific allegation
against him in the FIR. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory
bail of the petitioner no.2 stands rejected.
9. However, if petitioner no.2 surrenders before the
concerned Trial Court within a period of six weeks from today
then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his
surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being
prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.2 has
been rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order
on the merit of this case.
10. So far as anticipatory bail granted to accused Md.
Mahtab is concerned, it transpires to this Court that from the
FIR filed by the informant, Md. Mahtab has received injury and
therefore, the case of Md. Mahtab cannot be compared with the
case of petitioner no.2.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.