Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sanjay KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond and surety conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjay Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under IPC sections 341, 323, 354, 307, 448, 34 and Arms Act section 27. He asserted a clean antecedent and claimed the informant falsely implicated him, alleging that the alleged firing was a fabrication and the injuries to the victims were simple. The State opposed bail, arguing lack of documentary evidence to support the claim of simple injuries. The court examined the case diary, which corroborated the injuries as simple, and considered the petitioner's clean record. Applying Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, the court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the alleged offences.
  • Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and simple nature of injuries warrants bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • false implication
  • IPC offences
  • Arms Act
  • clean antecedent
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87960 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-306 Year-2021 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Ashok Kumar R/o Village- Shitael Tola, P.S. -Ara
                 Town, District- Bhojpur
                                                                       ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,

                   354, 307, 448 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as

                   Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that petitioner fired but missed and thereafter assaulted

                   his brother Deepak by rod causing injury on his head. Further,

                   unknown accused assaulted the another brother, namely, Suraj

                   of the informant and the occurrence took place on account of

                   dispute amongst the children.

                                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.87960 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            2/3




          informant. It is further submitted that allegation of firing has

          been alleged only to give seriousness to the case. It is next

          submitted that injury suffered by Deepak and Suraj has been

          opined to be simple in nature and the blow is not alleged to have

          been repeated by the petitioner. It is reiterated and submitted

          that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no

          documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate that

          the injury suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple

          in nature on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

          petitioner submits that he has copy of the case diary. Learned

          A.P.P. perused the case diary and fairly submitted that the injury

          of Deepak and Suraj has been opined to be simple in nature.

                       6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let

          the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or

          surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six

          weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing

          bail bonds 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 Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 306 of 2021, subject
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87960 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                       3/3




                     to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the

                     Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.