Patna High Court
MANOJ KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and verification conditions, finding the alleged injuries to be simple and the FIR possibly retaliatory.
Summary
Manoj Kumar sought anticipatory bail after an FIR (P.S. Case No.27 of 2026) alleged that he assaulted the husband of an informant with a Hasua, causing simple injuries, and also assaulted the informant and was involved in alleged theft. The petitioner contended that the allegations were fabricated and that the FIR was a retaliatory "counter‑blast" to an earlier case (P.S. Case No.18 of 2026) he had filed. The State opposed bail, arguing the assault was real and serious. The court examined the medical report indicating only simple injuries and noted the existence of a prior case suggesting the present FIR might be retaliatory. Relying on Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the CrPC despite the allegations of assault.
- Whether the injuries alleged in the FIR constitute a serious offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the FIR is a retaliatory counter‑complaint and thus lacks merit for denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- simple injury
- counter FIR
- fabricated allegations
- assault
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44861 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2026 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
MANOJ KUMAR Son of Shiv Shankar Ray @ Shankar Ray Resident of
Village- Bardiha Turki, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate
Ms. Shabina Talat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Shaheen Begum, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 08-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Patepur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026 for allegedly having
committed offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2),
303(2), 352, 351(2) and 109 of 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 her husband namely Sanjay Rai had given
Rs.1,00,000/- for sand and stones to his co-villager Manoj Rai
(petitioner herein). When the husband of the informant went to
the house of the petitioner to enquire about the delivery of sand
and stone, all the accused persons, including the petitioner,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
2/4
armed with lathi, danda and sharp cutting weapon started
assaulting the husband of the informant. It is alleged that the
petitioner assaulted the husband of the informant with Hasua on
his head, due to which blood started oozing out. When the
informant went to save her husband, the petitioner also assaulted
her with Hasua on her head, due to which she sustained injuries.
It has further been alleged that co-accused, Nisha Kumari
snatched gold chain from the neck of her husband and co-
accused, Shiv Shankar Rai snatched Rs.40,000/- from the
pocket of the husband of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the entire prosecution allegation, levelled in the First
Information Report, are false and fabricated. He further submits
that for the same occurrence, the petitioner herein had earlier
lodged Patepur P.S. Case No.18 of 2026 under different
sections of the B.N.S. wherein the informant and others have
been made accused. The present case is the counter blast of
Patepur P.S. Case No.18 of 2026. Further some of the co-
accused have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by
the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali. He further submits that the
injuries sustained by the injured have been found to be simple in
nature.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
3/4
5. Per contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of
the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner and submits that the petitioner had assaulted the
husband of the informant with Hasua on his head, due to which
he sustained injuries.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the specific allegation
against the petitioner is that he assaulted the husband of the
informant on his head with a Hasua, however the impugned
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali in A.B.P.
No.1393/2026 would suggest that the injury of Sanjay Rai
shows that he had sustained normal injury and so far the
informant is concerned, the injuries have been found to be
simple in nature caused by sharp object. Further there is case
and counter case and the present First Information Report is a
counter blast of Patepur P.S. Case No.18 of 2026 lodged by the
petitioner herein.
7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the
petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026
4/4
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali in connection with Patepur
P.S. Case No.27 of 2026, subject to the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S with a further condition
that:-
The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of his bail
bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.