Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sonelal RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied the petitioner's application for regular bail.

Summary

Petitioner Sonelal Rai applied for regular bail in a case where he is accused of assaulting an informant with a farsa, causing injuries, under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner claims he was falsely implicated due to a land dispute and that the injury was simple. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the direct allegation, the nature of the injury, and the petitioner’s antecedents. After hearing both sides, the Court found the allegations and injury sufficient to deny bail. The application was rejected, but the petitioner was permitted to renew the bail prayer after six months.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 given the nature of the offences and the evidence of injury.
  • Whether the alleged land dispute and the simplicity of the injury justify granting bail despite the seriousness of the charges.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • regular bail
  • criminal procedure
  • assault
  • Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • injury
  • land dispute
  • high court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23506 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-340 Year-2025 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sonelal Rai S/o Satyanarayan Rai Resident of village - Tajpur Saraiya, P.s.-
                 Rajepur, Dist.- East Champaran
                                                                            ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                  Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma
                                                  Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar, APP
                                                  Mr. Amit Bhushan, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-04-2026                   1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                                 2. The petitioner has preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case

                   no.340 of 2025, registered under sections 329(3), 329(4),

                   126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and

                   3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 to which section 109

                   of the B.N.S, 2023 was added subsequently.

                                 3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that the six named accused persons including the petitioner

                   herein came variously armed. The petitioner is said to have

                   assaulted the informant on his head with a farsa leading to

                   injuries.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23506 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of land

                     dispute between the parties. No such occurrence as alleged in

                     the FIR has taken place. Referring to the injury report

                     (Annexure-2), it is submitted that the injury has been found to

                     be simple in nature. The petitioner is in custody since 13.2.2026.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned

                     counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is named in

                     the FIR and there is direct allegation against him of having

                     assaulted with a farsa together with the corresponding incised

                     wound on the vital part of the body caused by sharp cutting

                     weapon has been found. The petitioner has antecedents as

                     mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the petition.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR together with

                     the corresponding injury having been found, the Court is not

                     inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is

                     rejected.

                                  7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his

                     prayer for bail after six months.


                                                 (Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.