Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29137 (PAT)

Dhanji Harijan @ Dhanji Ram v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./36414/2026 · 2026-08-13

Ajit Kumar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36414 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2024 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Dhanji Harijan @ Dhanji Ram S/o Vijay Ram Resident of Mohalla- Tarachandi Colony, P.S - Darigaon, District - Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Kant, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 13-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2024 dated 14.02.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Section/s 341, 307, 323, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per prosecution case, the accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of assaulting the Informant’s side by means of lathi, sticks, dandas and iron rod, causing injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the F.I.R. There is a case and counter case between the parties for the same and similar incident and the present case is the counter-blast of Sasaram(T) P.S. Case No. 159 of 2024 lodged Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36414 of 2026(5) dt.13-08-2026 2/4 by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the allegation made in the F.I.R., submits that the petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have injured four persons namely Arjun Bansal, Sameer Kumar, Nand Kishore Bansal and Punita Kunwar and the injury caused upon Arjun Kumar and Sameer Kumar have been found to be simple in nature while the injury caused upon the injured Nand Kishor Kumar have been found to be grievous in nature but, the same may not be attributable to the petitioner as allegations are general and omnibus. It is further submitted that the petitioner has two criminal antecedents in which he is on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further undertakes that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation and in the event of the petitioner’s name being found involved in any subsequent case in future and the allegations being found to be true on investigation, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail. 5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that there is case and counter case between the parties coupled with the fact that there is no specific allegation Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36414 of 2026(5) dt.13-08-2026 3/4 against the petitioner and, as also, the undertaking given by the petitioner that he will cooperate in the investigation, let the petitioner, above named, be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from today on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner who shall provide official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36414 of 2026(5) dt.13-08-2026 4/4 (iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. rishi/- (Ajit Kumar, J) U T