Patna High Court
Nawnit Pandey @ Manish Kumar @ Manish PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to a bond, sureties, and verification of antecedents under Section 482(2).
Summary
The petitioners, Nawnit Pandey and Kaishlendra Kumar, sought bail fearing arrest in a case (Noorsarai PS Case No.115 of 2026) alleging assault under several sections of the Bihar Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with a co‑accused Murlidhar Pandey, attacked an informant with an iron rod and sticks, causing injuries and a fractured hand, and also assaulted the informant’s wife. The petitioners contended they were innocent, that a counter‑case existed showing a mutual scuffle, and that they had clean antecedents. The State opposed bail, insisting the petitioners participated in the assault. The Court, after reviewing the submissions and noting the existence of a free fight and the petitioners’ clean record, granted bail conditioned on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and verification of criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Criminal Procedure Code.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Criminal Procedure Code in light of the alleged assault charges.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Criminal Procedure Code (B.N.S.S.) — s. 482(2)
- Bihar Penal Code (B.N.S.) — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- bail
- Section 482
- assault
- criminal procedure
- clean antecedent
- free fight
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35753 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2026 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Nawnit Pandey @ Manish Kumar @ Manish Pandey Son of Shivraj Pandey
(Wrogly Mentioned As Muralidhar Pandey in accused column) Resident of
Village -Parasi Police Station -Noorsarai and District -Nalanda
2. kaishlendra Kumar @ Chhotaku Kumar @ Chhotaku @ Kaushalendra
Kumar Son of Muralidhar Pandey Resident of Village -Parasi Police Station
-Noorsarai and District -Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 26-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in
connection with Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 115 of 2026, for
allegedly having committed offence under Sections 115(2),
351(2), 352, 109, 117(2), 74, 303(2), 3(5) of the BNS.
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 while he was sitting with his family members, all
the three accused persons came with Iron rod and and started
abusing the informant. Upon protest made by the informant, co-
accused Murlidhar Pandey is said to have assaulted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35753 of 2026(2) dt.26-05-2026
2/4
informant with Khanti on his head, due to which he suffered
injuries and fell down. Subsequently, the petitioners herein
assaulted the informant with sticks on their hand, due to which,
his left hand got fractured. When the wife of the informant came
to save him, she was also assaulted by stick and her gold
Mangalsutra was snatched.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any
offence. He submits that for the same occurrence, Noorsarai PS
Case No. 117 of 2026 has been lodged against the informant and
others by the wife of co-accused Murlidhar Pandey. He further
submits that a scuffle took place in between the parties and both
the sides suffered injuries, for which a case and counter case has
been lodged. He further submits that specific allegation of
assault on the head of the informant is on co-accused Murlidhar
Pandey. The allegation against both the petitioners are that they
assaulted the informant with stick, when he fell down on the
ground after being assaulted by Murlidhar Pandey. He further
submits that the petitioners have got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and
submits that along with co-accused Murlidhar Pandey, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35753 of 2026(2) dt.26-05-2026
3/4
petitioners have assaulted the informant with lathi due to which,
he sustained injuries.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that there was a free fight
in between the parties, for which case and counter case has been
lodged. Both the sides received injuries, however the only
allegation against the petitioners are that they assaulted the
informant, when he fell down on the ground, after being
assaulted by co-accused Murlidhar Pandey on head by a khanti.
The petitioners have got a clean antecedent. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above
named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks, be released 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 the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class- III, Nalanda in connection with
Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 115 of 2026, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further
condition:
(1) 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35753 of 2026(2) dt.26-05-2026
4/4
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 verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
Ajay/Kunal-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.