Patna High Court

Sudama SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Sudama Sharma petitioned for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (Bidupur PS No. 542 of 2025) involving multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The informant alleged that Sharma, during a land‑related altercation at a construction site, assaulted him with a knife, causing a head injury, and that other accused used lathi and danda. Sharma contended he has a clean record, was falsely implicated, and that both parties had assaulted each other, with Sharma also sustaining injuries. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific allegation of a knife assault on a 70‑year‑old victim, a dangerous weapon causing injury to a vulnerable part of the body. The Court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting Sharma's prayer.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the allegation of assault with a dangerous weapon causing injury to an elderly informant.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 324(5), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74

Subjects

anticipatory bail
assault
dangerous weapon
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
land dispute
false implication
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86230 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-542 Year-2025 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Sudama Sharma S/O Late Bharat Sharma Resident of Village - Myle, Police
                 Station- Bidupur,Dist- Vaishali
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                 Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Ranjeet Kumar
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
                                                   Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   20-01-2026               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

                   Bidupur PS Case No. 542 of 2025 registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 74,

                   324(5), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges

                   that construction was going on when accused persons came and

                   petitioner abused him, on objection petitioner assaulted him by knife

                   causing injury on head, while other accused persons assaulted him by

                   lathi and danda.

                             4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86230 of 2025(2) dt.20-01-2026
                                                          2/2




                        informant. It is next submitted that on account of dispute relating to

                        land, an altercation took place in which both side assaulted each

                        other. It is further submitted that even petitioner suffered injury on

                        head as he was assaulted by farsa by the side of the informant, but

                        then the side of the informant has been granted the privilege of

                        anticipatory bail.

                                 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 appearing on

                        behalf of the informant submits that there is a specific allegation

                        against the petitioner of assaulting the informant, who is 70 years of

                        age, by knife causing injury on temporal region as would manifest

                        from injury report annexed as Annexure-2 to the anticipatory bail

                        application, it is next submitted that knife is a dangerous weapon and

                        head is vulnerable part of the body.

                                 6.     Considering the submission made by learned counsel

                        appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to

                        extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

                                 7.     Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                        petitioner is rejected.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…