Patna High Court
Prabhat SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the condition that the trial court may cancel the bail if he attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
Petitioner Prabhat Sharma applied for bail in a case arising from a land‑dispute assault where he and his son were allegedly attacked, resulting in injuries. The FIR charges him under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including offences relating to assault and grievous hurt. The petitioner argued that the injuries were not to vital parts of the body and that the dispute was civil in nature, while the State opposed bail. The court considered the long custodial period since October 2025, the nature of the dispute, and the fact that the injuries were not to vital organs, and decided to grant bail. Bail was ordered on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, with a condition that the trial court may cancel the bail if the petitioner attempts to delay the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail despite being charged with multiple serious offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Whether the nature of the injuries and the underlying land‑dispute affect the grant of bail
- Whether the conditions imposed on bail are appropriate and sufficient
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 329(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
Subjects
- bail
- land dispute
- assault
- grievous injury
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Patna High Court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86241 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-502 Year-2024 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Prabhat Sharma Son of Chandrika Sharma Resident of Village - Turkauliya,
Ward No.- 05, Police Station - Turkauliya, District - East Champaran at
Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashank Shekhar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajiv Nayan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Turkauliya PS Case No. 502 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109,
76, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since 5-
10-2025 and the informant alleges that on 21.11.2024, he along
with his son Dinesh were sitting at the door, when at about
12:30 P.M., all the accused persons came variously armed and
started abusing and asked to stop the ongoing repairing work of
the house, on which, Dinesh protested on the ground that they
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86241 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026
2/3
do not have any share in the house, on which, the accused
persons got agitated and assaulted the informant and his son
causing injury on head and hand of Dinesh while informant’s
left hand got fractured and when the daughter-in-law of the
informant came to their rescue, she was also assaulted and her
saree and blouse were torn and when villagers gathered, the
accused left threatening that they would set the house on fire on
31.12.2024, if their share in the land is not given and the house
is not vacated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, the
occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted
that father of the petitioner is own brother of the informant and
are having dispute relating to property. It is further submitted
that no doubt injury suffered by Dinesh has been opined to be
grievous in nature, but then the said injury is not on vital part of
the body rather is on the hand. It is also submitted that
informant also suffered three injuries, one on parietal region, but
then the injury which has been opined to be grievous is found on
the hand. It is next submitted that allegation of assault is also
not specific.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86241 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026
3/3
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the fact that
petitioner is in custody since 5-10-2025 and the occurrence took
place on account of dispute relating to land, let the petitioner
above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Turkauliya PS Case No. 502 of 2024.
7. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial
court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release
is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of
charge is trying to delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial
court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…