Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Pawan Jha @ Pawan Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was not granted as the case was not fit for such relief.

Summary

The petitioners, four individuals from Kaithahi village, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS Rajnagar Case No. 76 of 2025) filed under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including offences of assault, rioting, and unlawful assembly. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, while intoxicated on ganja, assaulted an informant who had protested their conduct, causing injuries. The petitioners contended that no assault took place and that they have only one prior criminal antecedent. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged offences. After considering the facts, the Court held that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail and dismissed the application.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for the alleged offences
  • Whether the nature of the alleged assault and the petitioners' criminal antecedent preclude the grant of anticipatory bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • assault
  • intoxication
  • criminal procedure
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.55672 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2025 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
           1.     Pawan Jha @ Pawan Kumar Jha S/O Indrakant Jha Resident of Village-
                  Kaithahi, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani
           2.    Prakash Jha @ Prakash Kumar Jha S/O Pawan Jha Resident of Village-
                 Kaithahi, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani
           3.    Uday Shankar Jha S/O Deo Narayan Jha Resident of Village- Kaithahi, P.S.-
                 Rajnagar, District- Madhubani
           4.    Phulan Jha @ Daya Shankar Jha S/O Deo Narayan Jha Resident of Village-
                 Kaithahi, P.S.- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Nand Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   20-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection

                   with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 76 of 2025 instituted under

                   Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(1), 118(1), 110, 74, 303(2),

                   351(2), 3(5), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, petitioners and others

                   were taking intoxicants like ganja etc. and when it was

                   protested by the informant, he was assaulted by the petitioner

                   and others causing injuries.
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.55672 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
                                                          2/2




                                     4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                        the petitioners have not assaulted anyone. Petitioners have one

                        criminal antecedent.

                                     5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer

                        for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

                                     6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this is not a fit

                        case for grant of anticipatory bail.

                                     7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.



                                                   (Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.