Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 47223 (PAT)

Sunil Ram @ Sunil Kumar Ram v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./2914/2026 · 2026-01-28

Smt Soni Shrivastava

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2914 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2025 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sunil Ram @ Sunil Kumar Ram S/o Late Badri Ram R/o Village - Puraina Gosai (Kharg Pokhariya), P.S - Chanpatiya, District - West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umanath Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. 3. Allegation in the first information report is that the petitioner assaulted the informant on his head by means of farsa causing injuries. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present occurrence took place on account of a dispute with regard to common passage and the petitioner side and the informant side are both gotiyas. It has further been submitted that there is a case filed on the side of the accused persons Annexure-2 which discloses the factum of dispute between the parties and injuries having been suffered even by the side of the accused persons. It has also been submitted that as against Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2914 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/2 specific allegation of assault by farsa, the injury report as discussed in the bail rejection order would indicate that the same are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. Furthermore, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of three days for which no explanation has been tendered. 5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the delay in the FIR, case and counter case coupled with the simple nature of injuries, let the above named petitioner, who has no criminal antecedent, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chanpatiya P.S. Case No. 238 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S. devendra/- (Soni Shrivastava, J) U T