Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 77496 (PAT)

Manish Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./68571/2025 · 2025-09-26

Smt Soni Shrivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68571 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Manish Kumar son of Nahru Mandal @ Nand Kishore Mandal Resident of Village- Bari alalpur, Ps- Parbatta, Dist- bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 2 26-09-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case no.19 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 329(4), 109, 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.S, 2023. 3. The allegations in the F.I.R is that the petitioner came to the house of the informant and indulged in assault. It is further alleged that the petitioner assaulted the informant by means of a sharp cutting gadasa due to which he sustained grievous injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that there is delay of four days in lodging of the F.I.R inasmuch as the occurrence took place on 31.01.2025 and F.I.R Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68571 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 2/2 was lodged on 05.02.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has also filed a complaint case against the present informant and others. There is no independent witness to the said occurrence and the petitioner is a student of intermediate. The petitioner undertakes to co- operate in case/trial. 5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State on the ground that there is direct allegation of assault upon this petitioner causing grievous injuries i.e. fracture of the both temporal and parietal bone which has been recorded in the bail rejection order of learned trial Court itself. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of allegations and grievous injury attributed to the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected. Harsh/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T