Siddharth Shankar @ Siddhu @ Siddharth KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29730 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2026 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Siddharth Shankar @ Siddhu @ Siddharth Kumar S/O Late Ranjeet Kumar
                 Resident of Village - Mokama, Ward no.- 11, PO and PS- Mokama,Distt-
                 Patna, Bihar- 803302
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Anand Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
                                                 Mr. Harshit Ranjan, Adv.
                                                 Mr. Aditya Bharawaj, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Asha Devi, APP
                 For the Informant        :      Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   24-06-2026              Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                            2. Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to

                   make necessary correction in the prayer portion of this

                   anticipatory bail application in course of the day.

                            3. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

                   with Mokama P.S. Case No. 42 of 2026 dated 26.01.2026

                   registered for the offence punishable under Section/s 76, 126(2),

                   115(2), 109(1) & 125(a) of the B.N.S., 2023.

                            4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.01.2026 at

                   about 2:15 a.m., while the informant was returning home after

                   visiting a Saraswati Puja Pandal, the petitioner allegedly

                   followed her, entered her house, and attempted to outrage her

                   modesty and commit rape. Upon her raising alarm, her father
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29730 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
                                            2/4




          and brother intervened, whereupon the petitioner, allegedly

          under the influence of alcohol, assaulted them, causing a head

          injury to her father with a brick and injuries to her brother, and

          thereafter fled from the spot.

                  5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

          present case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after

          lodging of the F.I.R. by the petitioner’s side for an incident

          which is said to have taken place on 26.01.2026 wherein the

          Informant’s father, under the guise of Saraswati Puja collection,

          approached and demanded Rs. 25,000/- but, when the

          Complainant refused to pay, the Informant’s father badly and

          brutally assaulted the petitioner with stick and iron rods, causing

          grievous head injuries and displaced fracture of the left-side

          nasal bone and the injury report has been annexed as Annexure

          P/3 to the instant anticipatory bail application. It has next been

          submitted that in order to get over such accusation, the instant

          F.I.R. has been lodged by the Informant by making a concocted

          story. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a merchant

          navy officer and is a person of clean antecedent and the injuries

          caused on the person of the Informant has been found to be

          simple in nature. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29730 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
                                            3/4




          person of clean antecedent.

                  6. Counsel for the Informant has appeared suo motu and

          opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner

          but, is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by

          the petitioner with regard to injury sustained by the petitioner

          and there being head injuries and possible fracture of the left-

          side nasal bone.

                  7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant

          of anticipatory bail.

                  8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

          considering the fact that there is a case and counter case

          between the parties, the petitioner has also sustained injuries

          while the injury caused upon the Informant has been found to be

          simple in nature and, as also, the petitioner having no criminal

          antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, be released on

          anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the

          court below within a period of six weeks from today on

          furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with

          two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

          learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Barh (Patna) in

          connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 42 of 2026, subject to

          the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29730 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
                                                           4/4




                        as well as the following conditions:

                                (i)   One      of    the    bailors     should   be   the   family

                        member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide

                        official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;

                                (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date

                        before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive

                        dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail

                        bond by the Trial Court itself;

                                (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or

                        promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,

                        failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for

                        cancellation of the bail bonds.



                                                                                 (Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-

U         T