Patna High Court
Pintu GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
Given the serious nature of the alleged assault causing grievous injury to a vital part of the body, the court held that bail could not be granted to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Rajan Kumar and Pintu Gupta, were arrested in connection with a case alleging that they, along with several unknown persons, entered the informant’s house armed with iron rods and assaulted the informant and his son, causing grievous injuries to vital parts of the body. They filed applications for regular bail, contending that they were falsely implicated, that a prior case between the parties existed, and that no injuries corresponding to the alleged assault with a sharp weapon were found. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing that the alleged assaults resulted in serious bodily harm and that the petitioners were directly implicated in those injuries. After hearing both sides and reviewing the charge sheet, the court found the allegations of assault with an iron rod and resulting grievous injury to be serious enough to deny bail. Consequently, the bail applications were rejected, with the court granting liberty to renew the plea after the petitioners have completed one year in custody.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail despite being charged with assault causing grievous injury under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the existence of a counter‑case and prior bail to co‑accused affect the petitioners’ right to bail.
- Whether the alleged lack of injury evidence for some charges influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 308(3), 329(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- assault
- grievous injury
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81283 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-525 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Rajan Kumar son of Niranjan Sah @ Niranjan Prasad Sah Resident Of
Village- Ward no. 13, Basatpur, Near High School Patpariya Road, PS-
Mufassil, Dist- East champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 81317 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-525 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Pintu Gupta Son of Niranjan sah @ Niranjan Prasad sah Resident Of Village-
Ward no. 13, Village- Basatpur near High School Patpariya Road, Ps-
Mufassil, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 81283 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Rina Sinha, APP
Mr. Pratik Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Vatsal Vishal
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 81317 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet Gautam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Rina Sinha, APP
Mr. Pratik Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
4 11-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81283 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case
no.525 of 2025, registered under sections 329(3), 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 308(3), 303(2), 61(2), 352, 351(2)
and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the five named accused persons including the two
petitioners herein as also 10-12 unknown accused persons came
variously armed with iron rod, farsa, nalkatua etc. They entered
the house of the informant, started to abuse him and on protest
by the informant, the assault took place. Pintu Kumar is said to
have assaulted Mokshit Kumar, the son of the informant with an
iron rod on his head. Rajan Kumar is said to have assaulted the
informant with an iron rod on his head. Besides the petitioners,
there is specific allegation of assault against other persons also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. There is
case and counter case between the parties, the case lodged by
the petitioners’ side being earlier in time. As against the
allegation of assault with sharp cut weapon, no corresponding
injury having been found, the very allegation made by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81283 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
informant in the FIR fails. The petitioners are in custody since
25.8.2025 and 10.8.2025 respectively. Chargesheet has been
submitted in the case. They have no criminal antecedent. It is
finally submitted that in the counter case, co-accused Tripakar
Jha @ Kripakar Jha and Kiran Jha @ Kiran Devi have been
enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
no.79027 of 2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that so far as grant of bail to
the aforesaid two persons in the counter case by order dated
16.12.2025 is concerned, the allegation of assault leading to
grievous injury on the vital part of the body is not on them. It is
further submitted that both the assault attributed to the
petitioners herein on the informant and Mokshit Kumar have
been found to be on vital part of the body and grievous in
nature. As such it is prayed that the application for bail be
rejected.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material on record, the allegation against the
petitioners being of having assaulted with an iron rod leading to
corresponding grievous injuries on the informant side, the Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81283 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the
application is rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew their
prayer for bail after completing one year in custody.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…