Patna High Court
Pintu DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Das, sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for assaulting an informant and his brother while intoxicated. The prosecution alleged that the injuries to the informant's brother were grievous, and the petitioner was charged under several sections of the B.N.S. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting the incident was a minor village dispute and that he has a clean record. The State and the informant opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusations and seriousness of the injuries. Considering the direct nature of the allegations and the severity of the injuries, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the alleged assault and the nature of the injuries.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- intoxication
- injury
- FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8600 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2025 Thana- JAIPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Pintu Das S/o Mahendra Das R/o Village - Narayanpur, P.S - Jaipur, District -
Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Amandeep, Advocate
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner, in an intoxicated condition, assaulted informant and
his brother.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8600 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/2
committed no offence. Both parties are co-villagers and due to
petty dispute, simple maar-peet took place between the parties
in which both sides sustained injuries. There is case and
counter-case. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and
submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific
accusation that he assaulted informant and his brother. Doctor
has found the injuries, sustained by brother of informant,
grievous in nature.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and nature of
injuries allegedly caused by this petitioner, the prayer for grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…