Patna High Court
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the alleged offences were serious and involved the use of a dangerous weapon, justifying the court’s refusal to grant relief.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS Case No. 247/2024) involving multiple offences such as assault with a dangerous weapon and causing grievous injuries. He claimed he was falsely implicated due to a dispute over a passage and that the informant’s allegations were baseless. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged offences, the use of a knife, and the injuries to vital parts of the body, and noted that the petitioner did not dispute the factual allegations. The court examined whether the gravity of the charges and the risk of tampering with evidence justified denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC. Considering the State’s submissions and the seriousness of the offences, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC should be granted in a case involving assault with a dangerous weapon and grievous injuries.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences and the risk of evidence tampering outweigh the petitioner’s claim of false implication.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable (or Penal) Act, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- assault with dangerous weapon
- grievous injury
- false implication
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39988 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBPUR KAMAL District-
Begusarai
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Singh S/o- Late umesh singh @ Umeshwar Pd.
singh @ umeshwar singh R/o- Vill. - Durakpur Ward no. -08, P.S.- Sahebpur
Kamal, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sahebpur Kamal P.S. Case No. 247 of 2024 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2),
118(2), 126(2), 109, 303(2), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that on 31.07.2024 at 09:00 PM, Sanjeev, Khushboo and
Sandhya came and started abusing, on protest petitioner
assaulted by knife causing injury on nose and eye and even
assaulted his brother by knife causing injury on head and
women accused snatched chain of Kunal and Ajeet.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39988 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/2
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant on account of dispute relating to passage.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits
that specific allegation is alleged against the petitioner of
assaulting the informant and his brother causing injury on nose
and eye of informant and head of his brother. It is further
submitted that nose, eye and head are vital parts of the body and
knife is a dangerous weapon, as both side of knife is sharp side.
It is further submitted that from perusal of the pleadings made in
the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that
petitioner does not even dispute that he has not assaulted the
informant and his brother by knife.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.