Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sandeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court held that, in the absence of a specific allegation of an overt act against the petitioner and considering his clean antecedents, anticipatory bail must be granted.

Summary

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with PS case No. 119 of 2025, wherein he was alleged to have participated in an assault on an informant. The prosecution alleged that the assault was carried out by several accused, including the petitioner, using weapons, causing injuries to the informant and his family. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the specific allegation of causing injury was directed at co‑accused Vikash Kumar, and that he has a clean criminal record. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. The court observed that no specific overt act was attributed to the petitioner, noted his clean antecedents, and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. The bail was ordered on the condition of a bond, sureties, and compliance with stipulated conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations against him.
  • Whether the prosecution has established a specific overt act by the petitioner justifying denial of bail.
  • Whether the conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita are applicable.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • criminal procedure
  • assault
  • Section 482
  • Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • clean antecedent
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30866 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East
                                                       Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sandeep Kumar S/O Jayram Sah @ Jairam Sah Resident of Vilalge - Kasawa,
                 Kadamwa, P.S. - Ghorasahan, District - East Champaran

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Madhurendra Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-05-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                           2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection

                   with Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 dated 20.04.2025

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

                   115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,

                   2023.

                           3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.03.2025 at

                   about 7:00 PM, the accused persons, including the petitioner,

                   allegedly entered the house of the informant and assaulted him

                   and his family members by means of farsa, hammer, bricks,

                   stones, and lathi-danda, causing injuries. The injured persons

                   were taken to P.H.C., Ghorasahan and thereafter referred to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30866 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
                                            2/3




          Sadar Hospital, Motihari for treatment.

                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

          present case. It is further submitted that the injury alleged to

          have been caused to the informant has not been attributed to the

          present petitioner and that the allegations against him are

          general and omnibus in nature. The specific allegation of assault

          has been made against co-accused Vikash Kumar. It is lastly

          submitted that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedents and

          is ready to cooperate with the investigation.

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

          of anticipatory bail.

                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

          considering the fact that no allegation of overt act has been

          levelled against the petitioner, rather the specific allegation of

          causing injury to the informant is against co-accused Vikash

          Kumar, and further considering that the petitioner has 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 four 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
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30866 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
                                                           3/3




                        learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at

                        Dhaka, East Champaan at Motihari in connection with

                        Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025, subject to the condition

                        as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 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


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.