Brajesh Kumar @ Mona ThakurversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.687 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- PIYAR District- Muzaffarpur
                 ======================================================
                 Brajesh Kumar @ Mona Thakur Son of Uma Shankar Thakur Resident of
                 Village- Rampur Dayal, P.S.- Pear, District- Muzaffarpur
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   13-03-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf

                   of the informant.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Pear P.S. Case No.138/2025, registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2),

                   119(1), 308 (1), 308(3) and 324(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of six cases, out of which, the

                   petitioner was acquitted in one case and police submitted final

                   form in another case, in which, cognizance has not been taken,

                   one case was instituted by the informant, two cases are under

                   the Excise Act and one more case was instituted by the family

                   members and the informant alleges that road construction work

                   was being done forcibly on his land, on protest, the petitioner

                   assaulted him and asked him to leave the place of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.687 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                            2/3




          and snatched his chain, the informant managed to escape and

          came to his house, further three named accused persons

          excluding the petitioner along with 25 unknown accused were

          assisting in taking possession of the land, accordingly, the police

          was informed and the construction work was stopped, thereafter

          on the same day, in the evening, the petitioner and Ramanand

          came along with 200 unknown accused and the hut was

          uprooted and looted 5 quintal of grams.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

          informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the

          allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that

          informant alleges that forcibly a road was being constructed on

          his private land which led to the occurrence. It is next submitted

          that the road was not being constructed on the private land of

          the informant rather the road was under construction based on a

          scheme passed by the authorities.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel

          appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

          informant submits that the land on which the road was being

          constructed is private land of the informant, accordingly, the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.687 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026
                                                       3/3




                     police was informed and the police after verifying the record

                     stopped the construction work. It is also submitted that no

                     scheme has been brought on record to show that the road was to

                     be constructed on the private land of the informant. It is also

                     submitted that if authorities intend to construct a road on the

                     private land of the informant, in that event, the same can be

                     done only after acquiring the land in question. It is next

                     submitted that petitioner has antecedent of six cases and

                     similarly situated co-accused Ramanand Ojha had approached

                     this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc.

                     No.8558/2026 and the same came to be rejected by an order

                     dated 23.02.2026 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench. It is

                     thus submitted that the case of the petitioner is also on a similar

                     footing.

                                  6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the

                     Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail

                     to the petitioner.

                                  7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is

                     rejected.



                                                         (Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U      T