IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39932 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Mrityunjay chaudhary @ Hago chaudhary@ Hago Son of Balmukund Chaudhary @ Mukund Chaudhary Resident Of Village- Kanhaiya Chak Ps -Parbatta District -Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bipin Kumar, APP For the State : Mr.Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2 23-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The defect(s) as pointed out by the office be ignored. 3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 394 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(1), 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is accused of assaulting the victim causing injury. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is case and counter case between the parties. The Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39932 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026 2/2 petitioner and the informant are co-villagers and are known to each other. The petitioner is in custody since 25.03.3026. 6. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner. 7. Considering the fact that the injury sustained by the victim is simple in nature and there is case and counter case between the parties, the application is allowed. 8. Accordingly, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Khagaria/ concerned Court in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 394 of 2025. 9. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express any opinion on the merits of the case. P. Kumar (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T