Patna High Court
Suddu Singh @ Suddu Kumar @ Pratyaksh TyagiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations insufficient to deny bail and noting the compromise and lack of prior criminal record.
Summary
The petitioner, Suddu Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (PS Case No.739 of 2025) alleging he assaulted an informant with a knife. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, inflicted knife injuries on the informant, while the petitioner contended that the allegations were false, the injuries were simple and caused by a blunt object, and that a compromise had been reached between the parties. The petitioner also highlighted his clean criminal record. The court examined the nature of the injuries, the lack of corroboration in the FIR, and the existence of a compromise, and found no compelling reason to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, along with a monetary bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner given the alleged assault and the nature of injuries?
- Does the existence of a compromise between the parties and the petitioner’s clean criminal record justify the grant of anticipatory bail?
- Do the allegations in the FIR sufficiently corroborate the charges to deny bail?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- compromise
- criminal antecedent
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- CrPC Section 438
- Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33918 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-739 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Suddu Singh @ Suddu Kumar @ Pratyaksh Tyagi son of Dharmendra Kumar
@ Dharmendra Tyagi @ Dharmendra Resident of Belbanaa ward No 23
Town, PS -Motihari Town, Dist- Motihari (West Champaran )
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Sn Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No.739 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 01.08.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 31.07.2025, the
informant had gone to Gayatri Mandir Chowk for breakfast and
was eating bhuja in the field near Nagar Bhawan when the
petitioner and other accused persons allegedly attacked him. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33918 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
alleged that accused Lucky Kumar inflicted a knife injury on the
informant’s forehead, while the petitioner, namely Suddu Kumar
@ Suddu Singh @ Pratyaksh Tyagi, inflicted a knife blow on
his head. Another accused, Mohit Kumar, allegedly wrapped a
gamcha around the informant’s neck. Upon hearing the
commotion, passersby reached the spot and rescued the
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation against this petitioner of having assaulted the
informant, namely, Manish Kumar, with knife is false and does
not corroborate with the F.I.R. and the injuries is said to have
been caused by hard and blunt substance while the injuries are
found to be simple in nature. It has further been submitted that a
compromise has already been filed between the parties and they
do no want to proceed with the litigation. Lastly, it has been
submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the injuries sustained by the informant does not corroborate
the allegations levelled in the F.I.R, and the injuries are found to
be simple in nature and the petitioner has no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33918 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Session Judge – IV, East
Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Motihari Town P.S.
Case No.739 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure /
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and
with other 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/her/their 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33918 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.