IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44454 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2026 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Suresh Prajapat @ Suresh Prajapati S/o Mangaru Prajapati Resident of Village- Obra, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Mukul Kumari, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP : Mr. Nand Kishor Roy, Adv. : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 22-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that on account of dispute relating to land, the petitioner on 22.04.2026 at 9:00 PM, assaulted him by khanti and gadasa causing injury on head on account to which he became unconscious and thus was admitted in a government hospital, on regaining consciousness, he came to know Surya and Aditya Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44454 of 2026(2) dt.22-07-2026 2/2 assaulted his father by lathi causing injury on ribs and chest and snatched chain and Rs. 50,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant on account of dispute relating to land, it is further submitted that from side of the petitioner Obra PS Case No. 152 of 2026 has been instituted against the informant and his side. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. 6. Learned APP submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records that the injury suffered by the informant has been opined to be grievous in nature. It is also submitted that head is vital part of the body. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the application stands rejected. rajesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T