IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78349 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2025 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya ====================================================== Surendra Prasad Gupta @ Surendra Sao @ Surendra Saw Son of Sidheshvar Sao @ Sidhan Saw Resident of Mohalla - Dhaniya Bagicha, P.S.- Delha, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 2 16-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 118, 76, 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that water of his neighbour was flowing on his roof and on objection petitioner assaulted him by rod causing fracture of his right hand while Saloni assaulted the daughter-in-law of the informant by bricks causing injury on her head and his three sons snatched his daughter- in-law’s chain and acted inappropriately. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78349 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026 2/2 that on account of dispute relating to falling of water on his roof the occurence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that no doubt, an altercation had taken place but then both sides assaulted each other. It is also submitted that petitioner is not a criminal and the blow is not alleged to have been repeated and on a trivial dispute the occurence took place. It is further submitted that even allegation of assualt is not on vital part of the body. It is next submtited that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner let the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS. Kundan/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T