Patna High Court
Madan SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions, including surrender within six weeks and furnishing a bail bond with sureties.
Summary
Madan Sah applied for anticipatory bail after the police registered a case (Sahiyara PS No.203/2025) alleging he assaulted his cousin’s hand, invoking Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. The petitioner argued that he has no criminal record, the injury was to a non‑vital part of the body, and there was an unexplained delay between the incident, the informant’s statement and the FIR, casting doubt on its authenticity. The State and the informant opposed bail, contending the assault was grievous and the petitioner might not cooperate with the investigation. The Court considered the clean antecedent, the nature of the injury, and the delay, and held that bail could be granted provided the petitioner surrendered within six weeks and posted a bond with sureties, subject to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The Court also warned that bail could be cancelled if the petitioner failed to cooperate. The application for anticipatory bail was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case of alleged assault under Sections 126(2),115(2),117(2),109(1),352,3(5) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the delay in recording the informant’s statement and lodging the FIR affects the credibility of the complaint
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or obstruct the investigation
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- delay in FIR
- Section 109
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9606 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2025 Thana- SAHIYARA District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Madan Sah Son of Bindeshwari Sah R/v Village - Maudah, Ward no. 11, P.S. -
Sahiyara, Dist. - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Divya Bharti, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Adv.
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Diwakar, Adv.
Ms. Priya Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Saheeba Naz, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 27-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 203/2025 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2),
109(1), 352, 3 (5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per prosecution case, there is allegation against
the petitioner who is said to have assaulted upon the right hand of
the informant as a result of which the informant sustained hand
injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in
the FIR. The petitioner bears no criminal antecedent. He further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9606 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
2/3
submits that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay at every
stage, i.e. recording the fardbeyan as well as lodging the FIR. The
alleged occurrence took place on 29.10.2025, the fardbeyan of the
informant was recorded on 02.11.2025 and the FIR was lodged on
12.11.2025. No plausible explanation has been given regarding
the said delay, which questions the authenticity of the FIR. He
further submits that there is allegation against the petitioner who
is said to have assaulted the informant on a non-vital part of the
body. He further submits that both parties are cousin brother and
there is land dispute between the parties. In this context, facts are
generally exaggerated in order to make the case graver. He orally
submits that the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate
in the investigation to prove his innocence. In the light of the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out
against the petitioner under section 109(1) or any other allied
provisions.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned A.P.P. for the State vehementally opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that there is
specific allegation against the petitioner who is said to have
assaulted the informant on the right hand, which is grievous in
nature. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9606 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
3/3
case, keeping in view clean antecedent of petitioner and the
injury of the informant is on a non-vital part of the body, argument
advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into
consideration the material available on record, 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 bond of Rs.
10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Sitamarhi in connection with
Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 203/2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial
court bringing to its notice that the petitioner despite giving
assurance to this Court are not co-operating in the investigation, in
that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
amitkumar/-
U T
Checking your session…