Patna High Court
Sanni Kumar @ Sanni Kumar SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners subject to a bail bond, sureties, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Sanni Kumar and Nitish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Patarghat PS No.36/2026) alleging offences under sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners attempted to snatch a mobile phone, assaulted the informant Sanoj Kumar, his brother, and later the informant’s sister and aunt. The petitioners contended they were innocent, pointing to a counter‑case filed by their father and noting that the injuries were medically described as simple. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the assault allegations. The Court observed that an altercation existed but the injury report confirmed only simple injuries, and therefore granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, verification of criminal antecedents, and compliance with Sections 438(2) CrPC and 482(2) B.N.S. 2023. The bail order also allowed cancellation of the bond if the petitioners concealed prior convictions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the alleged assault and simple nature of injuries
- Whether the petitioners’ criminal antecedents warrant denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- simple injuries
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35550 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2026 Thana- Patarghat District- Saharsa
======================================================
1. Sanni Kumar @ Sanni Kumar Sah S/o Munna Sah R/o Village - Dhabouli,
Dakshini Ward No. 01, P.S - Patarghat, District - Saharsa
2. Nitish Kumar @ Neetish Kumar @ Neeteesh Kumar S/o Munna Sah R/o
Village - Dhabouli, Dakshini Ward No. 01, P.S - Patarghat, District - Saharsa
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.,Jai Narain Thakur, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 21-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Patarghat P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026 registered for the
offences punishable under sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 303(2),
351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 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 on the alleged date of occurrence while he along
with his younger brother was watching cricket match, the
petitioners and other co-accused persons tried to snatch the
Android mobile from Sanoj Kumar, but did not succeed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35550 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
2/4
Thereafter, all the accused persons started abusing and
assaulting him with fist. It is further alleged that the informant
along with his brother proceeded towards their home on a
motorcycle. The accused persons overtook the motorcycle of the
informant and again started abusing and assaulting them. When
the sister and aunt of the informant came their to save them, co-
accused Neha Kumari, Dezy Devi and Babli Devi assaulted the
aunt and sister of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioners are innocent. As a matter of fact, an altercation took
place in between the parties for which the father of the
petitioner had also lodged a counter case bearing Patarghat P.S.
Case No. 42 of 2026 against the informant and others under
different sections of the B.N.S. Further, the specific allegation
of assault on the head of the informant is against petitioner no.
1. So far petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he assaulted Sanoj
Kumar (informant’s brother) by three-nut. However, injuries
sustained by the informant and his brother and other family
members have been found to be simple in nature by the doctor.
The petitioners are also accused in one case bearing Saur Bazaar
P.S. Case No. 139 of 2018, in which they are on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State opposes
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35550 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
3/4
the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that they had
assaulted the informant and his family members.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the records, it appears that there was an
altercation in between the parties for which there is case and
counter case. Moreover, from perusal of the injury report vide
AnnexureP/2 annexed with the anticipatory bail petition, it
would transpire that the injury sustained by the injured persons
have been found to be simple in nature by the doctor.
Considering the same, let the above named petitioners, in the
event of arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in
connection with Patarghat P.S. Case No. 36 of 2026, subject to
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure/ 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with further condition:
(i) The trial court 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 step for cancellation of bail bonds of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35550 of 2026(2) dt.21-05-2026
4/4
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 verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
vinita/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.