Patna High Court
Aman Jha @ Aman Kumar Jha @ Shubham JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners subject to strict conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, Aman Jha and Manoj Jha, sought bail in a criminal case (Rosera PS Case No. 59 of 2025) arising from an FIR alleging assault with an iron rod that caused grievous injury. They contended that the allegations stem from a private dispute and that they were falsely implicated, noting that co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting the petitioners' prior criminal records and the seriousness of the alleged offences. The Court observed that while the injury was grievous, it did not affect a vital part of the body and that a case‑and‑counter‑case existed between the parties. Accordingly, the Court ordered bail on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and directed compliance with further procedural safeguards.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the seriousness of the alleged offences and their criminal antecedents
- Whether the existence of a case‑and‑counter‑case and the nature of the injury justify bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 352, 74
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- assault
- grievous injury
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88909 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-59 Year-2025 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Aman Jha @ Aman Kumar Jha @ Shubham Jha S/o- Shambhu Jha @
Shambhu Kumar Jha @ Shambhu Kumar Village- Nandenagar Balha PS-
Rosera Distt- Samastipur
2. Manoj Jha @ Manoj Kumar Jha S/o- Late Yaduvir Jha @ Late Yaduveer Jha
Village- Nandenagar Balha PS-Rosera Distt- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Madhav Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Vikram Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Raja Ram Mishra, learned counsel
for the Informant.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Rosera P.S. Case No. 59 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
27.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
alleged that on 19.02.2025, when she was returning from Bhola
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88909 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
Baba temple, then in the way, the petitioner along with other co-
accused persons assaulted her by means of iron rod. When other
people came to rescue her, the accused persons assaulted them
also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in
the present case. From bare perusal of the FIR it appears that
due to some petty dispute the present occurrence has taken place
and there is case and counter case between the parties and all the
cases which are pending against the petitioner have been filed
by the informant side. Although there is specific allegation
against the petitioner no.2 that he assaulted to one Brij Bhushan
Jha and he has received injury and injury inflicted upon the
injured person is recorded as grievous in nature but the same is
not vital part of the body and similarly situated co-accused
persons, namely, Mukesh Kumar Jha @ Mukesh and Vikram
Kumar Jha have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail
by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.08.2025
in Cr. Misc. No. 52599 of 2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioners on the ground that petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88909 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
no.1 has got three criminal antecedents and petitioner no.2 has
got one criminal antecedent other than the present one but fairly
submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that both
the petitioners are on bail in the pending matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
there is case and counter case between the parties and although
injury inflicted upon one of the injured person is grievous in
nature but the same is not on vital part of the body, let the
petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the court below within a period of thirty days from the
date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-
I, Rosera, Samastipur in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No.
59 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following
conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88909 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…