Patna High Court
Hasnain SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Hasnain Sah, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a domestic‑dispute case (Amour P.S. Case No. 89 of 2026) alleging assault with a bamboo stick that injured the informant’s son. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co‑accused, assaulted the informant and his son, citing offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to a long‑standing family feud, that the allegations were vague, that the injury report did not corroborate the claim, and that there was a delay of nine days in filing the FIR, also highlighting his clean antecedent. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. Considering the lack of specific incriminating material and the petitioner’s clean record, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 482 B.N.S.S. in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- domestic dispute
- assault
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 38883 of 2026
Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-89, Year-2026, Thana- AMAUR, District-
Purnia
===================================================
Hasnain Sah, S/o- Ekhlaq Sah, Resident of Village - Bishanpur,
Panchayat - Dubaili ,P.S.- Dagarua, District - Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
===================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Helal Ahmad, Advocate
Md. Tahmeed Halal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s: Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
===================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRAPANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Amour P.S. Case No. 89 of 2026 registered for
the offence(s) under Section(s) 126(2), 115(2), 109, 76, 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that informant
has alleged that the named accused persons including the
petitioner had abused the informant on account of domestic
dispute and thereafter, when the informant protested, the co-
accused Rais Sah and Noor Bano started assaulting the
informant. It is further alleged that when his son tried to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38883 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
intervene, all assaulted him with bamboo resulting in injury to
his head.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on account
of longstanding family dispute. It has further been submitted
that the allegation is general and omnibus in nature and no
specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. It has next
been submitted that the allegation of assault and injury caused to
his son does not stand corroborated from perusal of the injury
report at Annexure, P/2, it does not mention any injury to the
said injured persons namely Md. Harun. It would also transpire
that the incident is said to have been occurred on 15.02.2026
while the injured was being treated on 17.02.2026 and the F.I.R.
has been lodged after 9 days of the said incident. It has lastly
been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the concerned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38883 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
Court/successor Court within a period of four weeks from today,
on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the concerned Court/successor Court where the
case is pending in connection with Amour P.S. Case No. 89 of
2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the
following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his/her close relative and the other shall be a local
resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his/her bail
bonds.
(v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he/she has concealed his/her criminal
antecedents, the Court concerned shall take necessary
steps for cancellation of his/her bail bond. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38883 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
sweta/- (Sourendra Pandey, J)
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.