Patna High Court
Aditya Kumar @ Aditya SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Aditya Kumar and Chandralok Kumar, were accused of assaulting an informant and his son over a disputed loan of Rs. 30,000, leading to charges under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and alleging that the informant's allegations were false and that the injuries sustained were simple in nature. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the brutality of the assaults and the seriousness of the charges. The court examined the medical reports, noting that most injuries were simple and the reserved opinions did not involve vital parts of the body. Considering these facts, the court granted anticipatory bail on the condition of surrender within six weeks, posting bail bonds, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be denied in view of the alleged assaults and the nature of injuries.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 117(2), 125(a), 352, 351(1) and 3(5) of the BNS 2023 precludes grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 125(a), 126(2), 3(5), 351(1), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- simple injuries
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 32320 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2026 Thana- CHANDI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Aditya Kumar @ Aditya Singh S/O Syamjeet Yadav R/O Vill.- Bhairo Tola,
P.S.- Chandi, Dist.- Bhojpur
2. Chandralok Kumar @ Chandralok Singh S/O Syamjeet Yadav R/O Vill.-
Bhairo Tola, P.S.- Chandi, Dist.- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiv Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Priya, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and the learned
counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Chandi Police Station Case No. 19 of 2026 District
Bhojpur registered Under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 117(2),
125(a), 352, 351(1), 3(5) of BNS 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the effect that he was in a friendly-term with Shyamjeet Yadav
and on his request, Rs. 30,000/- was handed over to him to plant
potato crop, which he promised to return by 15.01.2026. When
the same was not returned, the informant asked for refund of his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 32320 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/5
money, upon which the said Shyamjeet Yadav started using
filthy language and ordered his son namely Chandralok Singh
and Aditya Singh (petitioners herein) to kill the informant. It is
alleged that the petitioner no. 2 assaulted the informant on his
left hand with a farsa while petitioner no. 1 assaulted the
informant with a lathi on his left hand. It has been further
alleged that the petitioner no. 2 then assaulted on the back side
of the head of the son of the informant while the petitioner no. 1
assaulted on the left hand of the son of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any
offence. He submits that the story of the informant with regard
to taking loan to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- by the father of the
petitioners is entirely false. He further submits that both the
parties are next-door neighbours and gotia and there is a dispute
with regard to the flowing of drain and on account of the same
the said occurrence has taken place. He submits that the doctor
who has treated the injured Krishna Singh (the informant
herein), found the injury no. 1 and 2 to be simple in nature,
however the opinion with regard to the injury no. 3 was kept
reserved. He submits that the injury no. 3 has been mentioned
that the informant is unable to lift his left shoulder. Similarly,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 32320 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/5
the injury no. 1 and 3 sustained by the son of the informant have
been found to be simple in nature, however with regard to injury
no. 2 the same has been kept reserved. He submits that the
injury no. 2 has been found by the doctor to be that the injured
is unable to fold both shoulders. He submits that the petitioners
have got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners
and submits that both the persons brutally assaulted the
informant and his family members, due to which they sustained
multiple injuries and the doctor who had treated the informant
and his son found two injuries to be simple in nature, however
with regard to one injury opinion has been kept reserved,
therefore the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
6. Similarly, the learned APP for the State opposes the
prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners
have brutally assaulted the informant and his son, due to which
they suffered multiple injuries.
7. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records it appears that the informant and his
son were assaulted by both the petitioners, however from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 32320 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/5
injury report which has been annexed along with the present bail
petition, it would transpire that so far the informant is concerned
the doctor, who had treated him found two of the injuries to be
simple in nature and with regard to the injury no. 3 it has been
recorded that “unable to lift shoulder”, the opinion has been
kept reserved. So far the injury report of the son of the
informant is concerned the doctor who had treated him found
two of the injuries to be simple in nature and with regard to one
injury i.e., unable to fold both shoulder, he had kept his opinion
reserved.
8. Considering that the injuries are simple in nature
and the injuries on both the injured persons, with regard to
which the opinion has been kept reserved, is not on the vital part
of the body. Considering the above, let the above named
petitioners, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of six
weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
JMFC Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Chandi Police Station
Case No. 19 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, and subject to the following condition:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 32320 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
5/5
(1) That the learned court concerned shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal
antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of the verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
pallavi/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.