Patna High Court
Krishna SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Krishna Singh petitioned for anticipatory bail after an FIR (Risiap PS Case No. 116 of 2025) alleged that, while intoxicated, he assaulted his brother-in-law with a rod, causing a grievous injury to the head. The petitioner claimed he was falsely implicated due to a personal dispute and argued that the assault was a single, isolated act. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charge under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including assault on a vital part of the body. The court examined the allegations and the gravity of the alleged injury. Concluding that the seriousness of the offence outweighed the petitioner's arguments, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita given the alleged assault causing grievous hurt.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- grievous hurt
- false implication
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9815 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2025 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Krishna Singh Son of Late Mohan Singh R/o Village - Bumru, P.S. - Risiap,
Dist. - Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mukul Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Risiap PS Case No. 116 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 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 the informant alleges
that petitioner in an intoxicated condition came and started
abusing his brother near a temple where he was sitting on 19-
10-2025 at 7 pm, on the pretext that his brother got his wife’s
name struck of the roll of Jeevika, thus an amount of Rs.
10,000/- did not come in her account, further petitioner’s son
came with rod and petitioner took the rod from his son and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9815 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/2
assaulted his brother on head causing injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant on account of dispute as alleged in the FIR. It is next
submitted that no doubt specific allegation of assault is alleged
against the petitioner but then the blow is not alleged to have
been repeated.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is a
specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the brother
of the informant by rod on head, i.e., vital part of the body and
the injury has been opined to be grievous.
6. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…