Patna High Court
Sandeep Prasad @ Sandip PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandeep Prasad, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging his involvement in the assault of an informant’s daughter and son, and an alleged outraging of the victim’s modesty, with video footage presented by the prosecution. He argued that he was not named in the FIR, that the incident stemmed from a land‑dispute resulting in a simple clash, and that he has a clean antecedent record. The State opposed the bail, citing the video and witness statements that directly linked the petitioner to offences under several sections of the B.N.S. The court examined the specificity of the accusations and the material evidence, concluding that the allegations were sufficiently direct and serious. Accordingly, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail, dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the video evidence and witness statements linking him to the alleged offences
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged non‑inclusion in the FIR and claim of a simple land‑dispute clash negate the seriousness of the accusations
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- video evidence
- FIR
- clean antecedents
- land dispute
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90973 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- ROH District- Nawada
======================================================
Sandeep Prasad @ Sandip Prasad S/O Rajendra Chauhan R/O Village-
Nayadih, Derhgaon, P.S.- Kashichak, Dist.- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 74, 118(1), 117(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, allegation has been
levelled against all the named accused persons that they came
and assaulted informant’s daughter and when son of informant
intervened in order to rescue, he was also assaulted. It is further
alleged that co-accused Shubhash Chauhan assaulted informant
by means of knife.
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.90973 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/2
committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. As a
matter of fact, on account of admitted land dispute between the
parties, a simple maar-peet took place in which both sides
sustained injuries. There is case and counter-case. Allegation of
assault is general and omnibus. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner surfaced
during course of investigation on the basis of video footage
wherein this petitioner was seen outraging the modesty of the
victim and the said fact is also supported and corroborated by
statement of the witnesses.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and materials that
have surfaced during course of investigation, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…