Patna High Court
Sufiyan@ SufyanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail as the allegations do not preclude bail and the conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNS, 2023 are satisfied.
Summary
The petitioner, Sufiyan, sought anticipatory bail in a case (Jokihat P.S. Case No. 336 of 2024) where he was accused of entering the informant's land, attempting to destroy crops with poisonous pesticide, and allegedly snatching cash, gold and silver jewellery causing damage of Rs. 1,00,000. The FIR, filed by the petitioner’s mother‑in‑law, also charges him under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the D.P. Act. The petitioner contended innocence, alleging the complaint is a pressure tactic linked to pending matrimonial and maintenance proceedings. The opposing parties, including the State and the second opposite party, opposed bail, characterising the petitioner as a habitual litigant. The Court, after considering the allegations and the statutory provisions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.30,000 and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNS, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s alleged habit of litigation justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 2(1)(d), 303(2), 324(5), 3(5), 351(3), 352, 482(2), 85
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- D.P. Act
- section 482
- bail conditions
- Punjab High Court
- criminal allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7408 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2024 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria
======================================================
Sufiyan@ Sufyan S/O- Late Abdurrajjak Resident of village- Rahriya, ward
number-05, P.S. Jokihat, District- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shahnaj D/O-Taslimuddin@ Taslim Resident of village- Farsadangi, P.S.-
Jokihat, District Araria.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Jokihat P.S. Case No. 336 of 2024, dated 24.09.2024,
lodged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 85, 324(5), 352,
351(3) & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as “BNS, 2023”) and under Section 3/4 of the D.P.
Act.
3. As per the prosecution, the F.I.R. has been lodged
against three named accused persons, including the present
petitioner, with an allegation that the petitioner entered into the
informant’s land and attempted to destroy the crops by spraying
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7408 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
poisonous pesticide thereon. It is further alleged that, upon
resistance, the accused persons also snatched cash, gold, and
silver jewellery, and by spilling poisonous pesticide, caused
damage to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
further submits that the F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother-in-
law of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that there are
already cases pending under Section 498A of the I.P.C. as well
as a maintenance case against him at the instance of the
informant’s side. Counsel further submits that the present case
has been lodged merely as a pressure tactic, as two earlier cases
were already pending against him at the instance of the in-laws’
family members.
5. Learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2, who has
appeared through notice, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail
and submits that the petitioner is a habitual litigant and, from the
allegations, it is evident that upon receiving notice in the
maintenance case, he has committed the present act. It is
therefore submitted that the bail application of the petitioner
deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7408 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
bail of the petitioner.
7. In the present facts and circumstances of this case
as well as upon perusal of the allegations made, let the above
named petitioner be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of
arrest or surrender before the Trial Court within a period of 4
weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees Thirty Thousand) as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of
the BNSS, 2023 to the satisfaction of C.J.M, Araria, in
connection with Jokihat P.S. Case No. 336 of 2024, subject to
the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.)
Aman Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.