Sunita DeviversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39328 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-87 Year-2026 Thana- KHAGAUL District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Sunita Devi W/o Munna Ray Resident of - Anandpur , P.S - Bihta, District -
                  Patna Permanent resident of Bari Khagaul Nav Ratanpur, P.S - Khagaul,
                  District - Patna
           2.    Ramesh Kumar S/o Munna Ray R/o - Bari Khagaul Nav Ratanpur, P.S -
                 Khagaul, District - Patna

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sarita Devi W/o Uma Shankar Rai R/o Village - Bari Khagaul Navratanpur
                 Ward No. 10, P.S - Khagaul, District - Patna

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP

                   for the State.

                           2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

                   connection with Khagaul P.S. Case No. 87 of 2026 dated

                   13.02.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections

                   126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 35(1) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023.

                           3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.02.2026 at

                   about 4:00 P.M., a dispute arose among family members over

                   partition of land and construction-related monetary transactions,

                   during which the accused allegedly abused and threatened the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39328 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                            2/4




          informant. Thereafter, at about 7:30 P.M., the petitioners along

          with other accused persons and some unknown persons, armed

          with lathi, danda and iron rod, assaulted the informant and her

          son, causing head injuries.

                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

          petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the

          present case. It is submitted that the incident has occurred due to

          family dispute between both the parties. It is next submitted that

          the Informant is the own sister of the petitioner no.1 and own

          aunt of the petitioner no.2. It is further submitted that the

          petitioner no.1 is a lady and the petitioner no.2 is a physically

          disabled young person having 50% permanent disability and

          there is no allegation of active participation as against the

          petitioner no.2. So far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, the

          allegation made against her is general and omnibus in nature.

          Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the

          statements made in this anticipatory bail application submits

          that the injuries are simple in nature. Learned counsel for the

          petitioners undertakes on behalf of the petitioners that the

          petitioners will cooperate in the investigation and they will not

          temper with the evidence, if enlarged on anticipatory bail.

          Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners bear no criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39328 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                             3/4




          antecedent.

                  5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has

          opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

          considering the allegation of assault made against the petitioners

          being general and omnibus and the injuries having been found

          to be simple in nature as also the petitioners having no criminal

          antecedent, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail,

          in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court

          below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing

          bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two

          sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

          Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Danapur, Patna in

          connection with Khagaul P.S. Case No. 87 of 2026, subject to

          the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the

          B.N.S.S. as well as the 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 their
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39328 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                          4/4




                        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,

                        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)
rishi/-

U         T