Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2072 DAILYLAW 1 (PAT)

Uday Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./2072/2026 · 2026-02-24

Sourendra Pandey

body2072

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2072 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2025 Thana- SOHSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1. Uday Kumar, Son of Late Ramchandra Yadav R/m - Singrahat, P.S. - Sohsarai, Dist. - Nalanda. 2. Mantu @ Mantu Kumar @ Mintu Kumar, Son of Late Mahendra Ram R/m - Brahmsthan Murarpur, P.S. - Laheri, Dist. - Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate Mr. Shananjay Kumar, Advocate Ms. Sristhi Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioners is that they had assaulted the informant when the informant had objected to the blockage of drainage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and in fact it was the informant who was the aggressor and had been Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2072 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026 2/3 objecting to a free flow of the drainage. It has further been submitted that it was on account of personal differences between the parties that this false and concocted case has been lodged and moreover, the allegations of brutal assault are also falsified by the fact that the injuries sustained are simple in nature. It has also been submitted that the petitioners had also filed a counter case bearing Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 337 of 2025. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners carry clean antecedents. 5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each 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 Sohsarai P.S. Case No. 336 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2072 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026 3/3 close relative. (ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial. (iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned. (iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond. (v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above- mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed. 8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial. manoj/- (Sourendra Pandey, J) U T